






$ 






























62d Congress, ) SENATE. j Report 

%d Session. [ ( No. 349. 


CHARGES RELATIVE TO ELECTION OF ISAAC 
STEPHENSON. 


February 12, 1912. —Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Heyblrn, from the' Committee on Privileges and Elections, 
submitted the following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany S. Res. 136.] 

The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred 
certain charges preferred by the Legislature of the State of Wiscon¬ 
sin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the 
State of Wisconsin, with instructions to report to the Senate whether 
in the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United 
States from the State of Wisconsin there were used or employed 
corrupt methods or practices, have had the same under consideration 
and submit the following report: 

On August 15, 1911, the Senate adopted the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections or any sub¬ 
committee thereof be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges pre¬ 
ferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of 
the United States from the State of Wisconsin, and report to the Senate whether 
in the election of said Isaac Stephenson, as a Senator of the United Slates from 
the said State of Wisconsin there were used or employed corrupt methods or 
practices; that said committee or subcommittee be authorized to sit during the 
recess of the Senate, to hold its session at such place or places as it shall deem 
most convenient for the purposes of the investigation, to employ stenographers, 
to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths; and that the expenses 
of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate, upon 
vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee or chairman of the 
subcommittee. 

Pursuant to the authority given by said resolution the Committee 
on Privileges and Elections appointed a subcommittee consisting of 
Mr. Hejdmrn, chairman, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Paynter, 
and Air. Pomerene, with full powers to investigate said charges. 

On January 20, 1912, the subcommitte reported to the full com¬ 
mittee as follows: 


IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST ISAAC STEPHEN¬ 
SON, A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN. 

To the honorable the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States 
Senate: 

Tour subcommittee proceeded pursuant to the terms of its appointment to 
investigate the above-mentioned charges, and in pursuance of said duty met in 











2 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 

Uie city of Washington and, having organized, proceeded to adopt a plan for 
holding such investigation. 

It was agreed by your subcommittee that the investigation should commence 
on October 2. 1911, at the city of Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin. 

•Accordingly your subcommittee met at the city of Milwaukee on the above- 
mentioned date, all parties in interest being present. Hon. Charles E. Little¬ 
field, W. E. Black, and H. A. J. Upham, Esqs., appeared as counsel for Senator 
Stephenson. 

The governor and the attorney general of the State of Wisconsin were notified 
by the chairman of your subcommittee of the time and place of the hearing and 
were invited to indicate to the committee whether or not they desired to be 
pre >nt and participate in any manner in such investigation. The governor of 
Wisconsin, speaking for the State, informed your subcommittee that no one on 
behalf of the State would appear at such investigation. 

Your subcommittee then proceeded to the examination of witnesses and docu¬ 
ments, which examination occupied 25 days, during which time 124 witnesses 
were sworn, 35 affidavits received, and 2,100 pages of printed testimony taken, 
which testimony, affidavits, and exhibits are herewith submitted as a part of 
the report of your subcommittee. 

Your subcommittee has given the fullest consideration to all the testimony 
introduced and has considered its weight and effect under the rules pertaining 
to the investigation and is of the opinion that the charges preferred against 
Senator Isaac Stephenson have not been sustained, and your subcommittee finds 
that the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States 
from the State of Wisconsin was not procured by corrupt methods or practices 
in said election of Isaac Stephenson. 

W. B. Heyburn, Chairman. 

George Sutherland. 

W. O. Bradley. 

Atlee Pomerene. 

Mr. Heyburn, chairman of the subcommittee, submitted a state¬ 
ment of his views in support of the conclusions reached, and on the 
request of members of the committee further consideration of the 
matter was postponed to February 3, 1912, on which date a further 
postponement was had to February 10, 1912, with the understanding 
that any member of the committee might file a statement of his views 
to accompany the final report of the committee, and that a vote might 
be taken on that date. 

On February 10, 1912, the Committee on Privileges and Elections 
met in regular session and received a statement of the views of Mr, 
Pomerene and Mr. Sutherland in support of the report of the sub¬ 
committee, and proceeded to the consideration of the report of the 
subcommittee together with the views expressed by the members 
thereof upon a full record of the testimony and proceedings in the 
case. 

Gn motion it was ordered that the report of the subcommittee be 
adopted and that said subcommittee be discharged. 

Whereupon it was ordered that Mr. Heyburn be instructed to re¬ 
port the action of the committee to the Senate, together with a tran¬ 
script of testimony and of all the proceedings of the subcommittee, 
including the address of Hon. Charles E. Littlefield before the whole 
committee, and also the individual views presented by members of 
the committee. Leave was given to file a minority report by those 
•dissenting from the conclusions reached. 

Wherefore your committee, having given full consideration to the 
law and to the testimony and to all of the facts and circumstances 
brought to its notice, does find that the charges preferred against 
Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of 


cl~ 


4 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


U Wisconsin, are not sustained, and your committee further finds that 
the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United 
States was not procured by corrupt methods or practices. 

Wm. P. Dillingham. 
Robert J. Gamble. 

W. B. Heyburn. 

Geo. Sutherland. 
George T. Oliver. 

Jos. F. Johnston. 
Duncan U. Fletcher. 
Atlee Pomerene. 

W. O. Bradley. 


VIEWS OF MR. HEYBURN IN SUPPORT OF THE REPORT 
OF THE COMMITTEE. 


The subcommittee having reported to the whole committee in 
favor of Isaac Stephenson, I desire to submit herewith the reasons 
which actuated me in arriving at that conclusion: 

jurisdiction. 

On August 15, 1911, the United States Senate adopted the follow¬ 
ing resolution: 

Resolved , That the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections or any subcom¬ 
mittee thereof be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges preferred by 
the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States 
from the State of Wisconsin, and report to the Senate whether in the election of said 
Isaac Stephenson, as a Senator of the United States from the said State of Wisconsin 
there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices; that said committee or sub¬ 
committee be authorized to sit during the recess of the Senate, to hold its session at 
such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investiga¬ 
tion, to employ stenographers, to send for persons and papers, and to administer 
oaths; and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of 
the Senate, upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee or chair¬ 
man of the subcommittee. 

Pursuant to the authority given by said resolution the Committee 
on Privileges and Elections appointed a subcommittee consisting of 
Senators Heyburn, Sutherland, Bradley, Paynter, and Pomerene, with 
full powers “to investigate said charges preferred by the Legislature 
of Wisconsin relating to the election of Isaac Stephenson, a Senator 
from the State of Wisconsin.” 

meeting of subcommittee. 

In performance of said duty the subcommittee met at Milwaukee, 
Wis., on October 2, 1911, in the Federal Building, a quorum of said 
subcommittee being present. 

The chairman announced that the subcommittee would recognize a 
duly authorized representative of the State of Wisconsin, in view of 
the fact that the State had submitted through its governor to the 
Senate of the United States the charges to be investigated. No one 




4 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


appearing, the chairman then instructed the secretary of the subcom¬ 
mittee to communicate with the governor and attorney general of the 
State and advise them that the committee was in session in Milwaukee 
for the purpose of investigating the charges aforesaid, and to inquire 
whether or not the State desired to be represented at the hearing, and, 
pursuant to such instruction, the secretary sent the following com¬ 
munication to the governor: 

Milwaukee, Wis., October 2, 1911. 

Hon. Francis E. McGovern, 

Governor of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.: 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States 
Senate, duly appointed, with instructions to investigate the election of Isaac Stephenson 
as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, as recommended by the 
Legislature of Wisconsin as provided in joint resolution 58 of said legislature, has 
entered upon the investigation in the Federal Building, in the city of Milwaukee. As 
the State appears to be unrepresented by counsel, you are requested to advise the 
committee whether or not it is the desire of the State to be represented by counsel 
before this committee, and if so, designate in writing such person to represent the State. 

W. B. Heyburn, Chairman. 

To which communication the governor replied as follows: 

Executive Chamber, 
Madison, Wis., October 3, 1911. 

Hon. W. B. Heyburn, 

Chairman Subcommittee of the United States Senate 

Committee on Privileges and Elections, Milwaukee, Wis. 

My Dear Sir: In reply to your telegram of yesterday, in which you request me to 
advise your committee “whether or not it is the desire of the State to be represented 
by counsel” before your subcommittee, permit me to say that I find there is very 
serious doubt that I have any power to act m the matter. Joint resolution 58, to which 
you refer, confers no such authority. It simply requests the United States Senate 
“ to investigate the manner, means, and methods by and through which Isaac Stephen¬ 
son secured his election to the United States Senate,” recommends to the district 
attorney of Dane County that prosecutions be commenced against all persons shown 
to have committed perjury in the senatorial inquiry in this city, and suggests that 
prosecutions be commenced in other counties of the State for such violations of the 
corrupt-practices or bribery statutes as the evidence may justify. 

In the absence of any specific authority conferred by this joint resolution the only 
other possible source is chapter 268 of the laws of Wisconsin for the year 1911. Care¬ 
ful consideration of this statute leaves me in doubt as to whether it confers power 
upon me to employ at the expense of the State counsel to attend the investigation 
your subcommittee is now conducting. Nor can I see that much good is likely to 
come from such employment. Your invitation comes so late as practically to pre¬ 
clude the possibility of anyone whom I might select rendering any real service to 
your committee or materially assisting in the investigation now in progress. That 
investigation has already begun. The transactions to be inquired into are numerous 
and involved, as appears from the fact that the testimony already taken occupied 
many months of the time of committees of the State legislature and now fills a number 
of large volumes of printed reports. To be of service counsel for the State should 
have been employed months ago. I say this with no feeling of personal responsi¬ 
bility in the matter for the reason that until your telegram came yesterday there was 
no ground for anticipating that the appearance of an attorney for the State at this 
hearing would be acceptable to your committee. Indeed, more than a week ago, 
under date of September 25, the Associated Press quoted you as having expressed 
yourself as chairman of the subcommittee as follows: “The State of Wisconsin will 
not have an attorney in the investigation of the election of Isaac Stephenson by the 
United States Senate committee. This hearing is under the jurisdiction of the United 
States Senate, which does not recognize the State as a party to the investigation. 
This is an investigation, not a trial.” 

An additional reason why I should not avail myself of your invitation at this time 
is furnished by the practice of other committees charged with duties similar to yours. 
So far as I know no State has been represented by counsel at any of these investigations. 
The work has been done either by the members of the committee alone or by counsel 
of their own choosing. At any rate, the responsibility for a thorough, searching 
inquiry is upon your subcommittee acting as the agent of the United States Senate 


SENATOR FROM; WISCONSIN. 


5 


in determining a question relative to the “election, returns, and qualifications” of one 
of its own Members. Neither the State of Wisconsin nor its legislature desires to 
assume the rdle of prosecutor or to sustain any other relation to this investigation than 
that of petitioner for a thorough, fearless, and impartial inquiry. 

For the present, therefore, I shall take no action concerning the matter mentioned 
in your telegram. Assuring you, however, of my appreciation of your consideration 
in extending the invitation, I am, 

Very truly, yours, Francis E. McGovern. 

The chairman inquired whether or not counsel were present to 
represent Mr. Stephenson. Whereupon Hon. Charles E. Littlefield, 
Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. A. J. Upham appeared on his behalf 
and were recognized by the committee. 

The joint resolution and specific charges certified to the United 
States Senate by the governor of Wisconsin were then read. (Tran¬ 
script, pp. 4 and 5.) 

Before entering upon the examination of witnesses by the com 
mittee Hon. Charles E. Littlefield, of counsel for Mr. Stephenson, 
requested leave to make a statement, which leave was granted. 
(Transcript, pp. 6-23.) 

The subcommittee then proceeded to the examination of witnesses 
and documents, which examination occupied 25 days, during which 
time 116 witnesses were sworn and examined, 36 affidavits received, 
and upward of 2,100 pages of printed testimony taken, which testi¬ 
mony, affidavits, and exhibits are herewith offered as a part of the 
report of the subcommittee. 

The subcommittee was directed to investigate certain charges pre¬ 
ferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Mr. Stephenson. 
These charges were set forth in the communication of the governor 
of Wisconsin, and the papers accompanying the same, certified to the 
United States Senate, among which was the joint resolution adopted 
by the Legislature of Wisconsin on June 26, 1911, which is found on 
page 2 of the transcript. 

The charges referred to in the resolution under which the subcom¬ 
mittee acted are as follows: 

SPECIFIC CHARGES. 

1. That Isaac Stephenson, of Marinette, Wis., now United States Senator and a 
candidate for reelection, did, as such candidate for reelection, give to one E. A. 
Edmonds, of the city of Appleton, Wis., an elector of the State of Wisconsin and said 
city of Appleton, a valuable thing, to wit, a sum of money in excess of $106,000, and 
approximating the sum of $250,000, as a consideration for some act to be done by said 
E. A. Edmonds, in relation to the primary election held on the 1st day of September, 
1908, which consideration was paid prior to said primary election, and that said Isaac 
Stephenson was at the time of such payment a candidate for the Republican nomina¬ 
tion for United States Senator at such primary, and did by such acts as above set 
forth violate section 4543b of the statutes. 

2. That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to said primary, pay to said Edmonds above- 
mentioned sums with the design that said Edmonds should pay to other electors of this 
State, out of said sums above mentioned and other sums of money received by said 
Edmonds from said Isaac Stephenson, prior to said primary, sums ranging from $5 per 
day to $1,000 in bulk, as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to said 
primary by said electors for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate, in violation of 
said section. 

3. That with full knowledge and with instructions from said Isaac Stephenson, as 
to how and for what purposes said sums were to be expended, said sums were so paid 
as above stated to said Edmonds by said Isaac Stephenson and that said sums were 
paid as above stated for the purposes above stated and also for the purpose of bribing 
and corrupting a sufficient number of the electors of the State of Wisconsin to encom¬ 
pass the nomination of said Isaac Stephenson at said primary for the office of United 
States Senator. 


6 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


4. That in pursuance of the purposes and design above stated said Isaac Stephenson 
did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one U. C. Keller, of Sauk 
County, an elector of this State, the sum of $300 as a consideration for some act to be 
done by said Keller for said Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and 
unlawfully. 

5. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by 
and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to one Hambright, of Racine, Wis., 
large sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by said Hambright for 
said Stephenson preliminary to said primary, said Hambright being then an elector 
of this State, corruptly and unlawfully. 

6. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above stated said Isaac 
Stephenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one Roy 
Morse, of Fond du Lac, Wis., then an elector of this State, the sum of $1,000 as a con¬ 
sideration for some act to be done by said Morse for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary 
to said primary, and corruptly and unlawfully. 

7. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, 
by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to divers persons, then electors 
of the county of Grant, Wis., ranging from $5 per day and upward, as a consideration 
for some act to be done by said several electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary 
to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 

8. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design, said Isaac Stephenson, 
by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to divers persons who were 
at such time electors in this State a consideration for some act to be done for said Isaac 
Stephenson by such electors preliminary to such primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 

9. That in further pursuance of such purposes and designs said Isaac Stephenson, 
by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to electors of this State, who 
were of a different political opinion and who held to other political principles than those 
of the Republican Party, more particularly Democrats, sums of money as a considera¬ 
tion for some act to be done by such electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to 
said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 

10. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, 
by and through his agents, prior to such primary, did offer to pay to Edward Pollock, 
of Lancaster, Wis., certain sums of money, as editor of the Teller, a newspaper pub¬ 
lished in said city of Lancaster, Wis., and to other editors of newspapers who were at 
such time electors of this State, and for the purpose of purchasing the editorial support 
of such editors and as a consideration of something to be done relating to such primary, 
corruptly and unlawfully. 

11. That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to such primary, by and through his agents, 
promise and agree to pay to one Lester Tilton, a then resident and elector of this State, 
and residing at the city of Neillsville, Wis., a sum in excess of $500 to procure or aid 
in procuring the nomination of said Lester Tilton to the assembly of this State from 
from Clark County, and did offer to give to said Lester Tilton a sum in excess of $500 
if said Lester Tilton would become a candidate for the assembly from said Clark 
County if said Lester Tilton would support said Isaac Stephenson for the office of 
United States Senator, all of which is in violation of sections 4542b and 4543b of the 
statutes. 

12. That said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, give and promise 
and pay or agree to pay to other electors of this State sums of money to procure or aid 
in procuring the nomination of such electors to the senate and assembly of this State 
other than those electors residing in the district where said Isaac Stephenson resides. 

13. That E. M. Heyzer and Max Sells, prior to said primary, being at such time 
employees of the Chicago & North Western Railway Co., a corporation doing business 
in this State, did contribute and agree to contribute free services as such employees 
for the purpose to defeat the candidacy of former assemblyman E. F. Nelson, from the 
district embracing Florence, Forest, and Langlade Counties, for the nomination for 
assemblyman from said district, all of which was done with the knowledge and consent 
and under the direction of said Isaac Stephenson, his agents, and employees, contrary 
to chapter 492, Laws of 1905. 

14. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above set forth said Isaac 
Stephenson, by and through his agents, did, in addition to paying certain sums as above 
set forth, offer and agree to pay to electors of this State, prior to said primary, a premium 
or bonus to those who in his employ carried their respective precincts in such primary 
for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate. 

15. That said Isaac Stephenson, if claiming an election by virtue of receiving a 
plurality of votes at such primary, then said Isaac Stephenson has violated chapter 
502 of the laws of 1905 by failing and neglecting to file his expense account as provided 
by said chapter. 


SENATOR PROM WISCONSIN. 


7 


16. Charging generally the primary nomination or election of said Isaac Stephenson 
was obtained by the use of large sums of money corruptly and illegally, by the viola¬ 
tion of sections 4542b, 4543b, and 4478b of the statutes relating to illegal voting, brib¬ 
ery, and corruption, and other laws above set forth relating to elections and primary 
elections. 

John J. Blaine, a State senator, who made the .said 16 specific 
charges, which constituted the basis of the legislative investigation, 
was examined in detail as to each of such charges and failed to sustain 
any of them, either by his own testimony or by reference to the tes¬ 
timony of others. The charges were made on information and belief 
according to his own testimony. He seemed upon examination to 
have no information upon which any belief as to their truth could be 
based. 

An inspection of his testimony (transcript, p. 592, etc.) will fully 
justify the conclusion of the subcommittee that such charges were not 
sustained. 

These charges were investigated by two legislative committees; 
first, by a joint committee which submitted, a report which was not 
finally acted upon; second, by a committee of three members of the 
State senate, only one member of which was a member of the legisla¬ 
ture when the report of that committee was made. 

The time within which the joint legislative committee might take 
testimony and report was limited by the legislature to expire on the 
13th day of April, 1909, and on that day the said committee met and 
adopted a resolution that each member make an outline of his pro¬ 
posed report and submit it at a later day for discussion before the 
committee. 

Said committee then adjourned subject to the call of the chairman 
of the senate or assembly committee. 

This ended the work of the joint investigating committee. 

The State senate, acting independently of the assembly and in view 
of the expiration of the time within which the joint committee might 
finish its work, adopted a resolution on March 25, 1909, authorizing 
the president of the senate to appoint a committee consisting of 
three members to complete the investigation that had been carried 
on by the joint committee and to “ further fully, fairly, and thoroughly 
investigate the campaign and election of Isaac Stephenson as a United 
States Senator, and the campaign and election of members of th6 
legislature so far as their election in any way pertains to or affects 
the election of Isaac Stephenson as a United States Senator.” 

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION. : 

In the order of their importance the duties of the subcommittee may 
be classified as follows: 

First. To investigate the proceedings by the legislature, including 
the actions of Senator Stephenson and those representing him, dur¬ 
ing the session of the legislature. 

Second. To investigate the campaign and election of members of 
the legislature so far as their election in any way pertains to or 
affects the election of Isaac Stephenson as a United States Senator. 

Third. The primary election and the campaign. 


8 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


ELECTION OF A SENATOR BY THE LEGISLATURE. 

The law providing for the election of Senators by the legislature is 
as follows, being chapter 1, title 2, of the Revised Statutes of the 
United States: 

Sec. 14. The legislature of each State which is chosen next preceding the expira¬ 
tion of the time for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress 
shall, on the second Tuesday after the meeting and organizing thereof, proceed to 
elect a Senator in Congress. 

Sec. 15. Such election shall be conducted in the following manner: Each house 
shall openly, by a viva voce vote of each member present, name one person for Sena¬ 
tor in Congress from such State, and the name of the person so voted for who receives 
a majority of the whole number of votes cast in each house shall be entered on the 
journal of that house by the clerk or secretary thereof; or if either house fails to give 
such majority to any person on that day, the fact shall be entered on the journal. At 
twelve o’clock meridian of the day following that on which proceedings are required 
to take place as aforesaid the members of the two houses shall convene in joint assem¬ 
bly, and the journal of each house shall then be read, and if the same person ha3 re¬ 
ceived a majority of all the votes in each house he shall be declared duly elected 
Senator. But if the same person has not received a majority of the votes in each house, 
or if either house has failed to take proceedings as required by this section, the joint 
assembly shall then proceed to choose, by a viva voce vote of each member present, 
a person for Senator, and the person who receives a majority of all the votes of the 
jomt assembly, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being present 
and voting, shall be declared duly elected. If no person receives such majority on 
the first day, the joint assembly shall meet at twelve o’clock meridian of each succeed¬ 
ing day during the session of the legislature and shall take at least one vote until a 
Senator is elected. 

Sec. 16. (Relates to filling vacancies.) 

Sec. 17. (Also relates to tne filling of vacancies.) 

Sec. 18. It shall be the duty of the executive of the State from which a Senator has 
been chosen, to certify his election, under the seal of the State, to the President of the 
Senate of the United States. 

Sec. 19. The certificate mentioned in the preceding section shall be countersigned 
by the secretary of state of the State. 

PROCEEDINGS IN THE LEGISLATURE. 

The Forty-ninth Legislature of Wisconsin consisted of 33 senators 
and 100 assemblymen, and convened at the capitol at Madison on 
January 13, 1909, at 12 o’clock m. 

On Thursday, January 14, 1909, the organizing of both houses 
was complete, and the assembly adjourned until Tuesday, January 
19, at 10 o’clock. 

The senate organized on January 13, 1909, and on January 14 
Senator Husting introduced joint resolution 3, providing for the 
investigation of the primary election, which was laid over until the 
next session, and the senate adjourned until Tuesday, January 19, 
at 10 o’clock a. m. 

On Tuesday, January 26, the senate considered joint resolution 3, 
and a substitute was introduced by Senator Blaine. (Senate Journal, 
pp. 72-77.) This substitute contains the specific charges. 

On January 26, 1909, a vote was taken on the election of United 
States Senator, each house voting separately. 

In the senate the total number of votes cast was 17. Mr. Stephen¬ 
son received 12 votes, Brown 4, Rummel 1. (Senate Journal, pp. 
78-79.) 

On the same day, January 26, upon the call of the roll in the 
assembly, the total number of votes cast for Senator was 84. Mr. 
Stephenson received 60, Neal Brown 16, Jacob Rummel 3, S. A. Cook 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 9 

2, H. A. Cooper 1, J. H. Stout 1, and John J. Each 1, which result 
was announced by the speaker. (Assembly Journal, pp. 74-75.) 

On Wednesday, January 27, resolutions were introduced in the 
senate, among others joint resolution 8, being an arraignment of the 
United States Senate and a demand for its abolition, introduced by 
Senator Gaylord. (Senate Journal, p. 86.) It was referred to the com¬ 
mittee on Federal relations. This is mentioned in passing only to 
show the temper of the legislature on the day of the first joint ballot 
for United States Senator. 

At 12 o’clock noon of January 27, 1909, the two houses met in joint 
convention. The lieutenant governor, presiding, stated: 

Gentlemen of the joint convention, you are assembled here for the purpose of 
expressing your choice for United States Senator. In order to comply with the Fed¬ 
eral law the clerk of the senate and the clerk of the assembly will read from the journal 
of each house, respectively, the proceedings of the preceding day with reference to 
the election of a United States Senator. 

The senate journal (p. 94) and the assembly journal (p. 80) records 
as follows: 

The chief clerk of the senate read the journal of the senate of January 26, 1909, and 
the chief clerk of the assembly read the journal of the assembly of January 26, 1909. 

The president then said: “ The clerk will call the roll. As your names are called 
you will arise from your seats and announce the candidate of your choice.” 

Senator Hudnall said: 

I rise to protest against any other proceedings being taken in the joint assembly at 
this time except the announcement of the presiding officer that Hon. Isaac Stephenson 
is elected to the United States Senate for the term commencing March 4, 1909. I do 
that for the reason that it appears from the journal of the senate that the total number 
of votes cast for persons were 17, of which Isaac Stephenson received 12, Neal Brown 
4, Jacob Rummel 1, and the journal of the assembly shows that of the members who 
voted for persons there were 60 for Stephenson, 10 for Brown, and 3 for Jacob Rummel; 
and it further appears from both journals of senate and assembly that Isaac Stephenson 
received a majority of all the votes cast in each house. 

It devolves then upon the president of this joint assembly to declare Isaac Stephen¬ 
son duly elected to the United States Senate, and then the duty devolves upon the 
president of the senate and speaker of the assembly to certify his election to the gov¬ 
ernor and to the secretary of state, and they to certify his election to the United States 
Senate. Any other proceeding is out of order and nugatory. 

Senator Hudnall stated that lie made this statement as a protest 
and as a point of order. • The president held the point of order not 
well taken and held that Senator Hudnall was out of order in his 
protest. 

The presiding officer then directed the nomination of candidates, 
and the joint assembly proceeded to vote for a United States Senator. 
There were 131 votes cast, of which Isaac Stephenson received 65, 
and the presiding officer announced that “it appears from the records 
of the convention that no person has received a majority of the votes 
cast for United States Senator.” Whereupon the joint convention 
dissolved. 

On no other day until the 4th of March, 1909, did anyone receive a 
majority of the votes cast in joint assembly. On that day (the 4tli of 
March) upon the twenty-fourth ballot of the joint assembly there 
were 123 votes cast of vdiich Isaac Stephenson received 63. Where¬ 
upon the chairman of the joint assembly announced the election of 
Isaac Stephenson, and the joint assembly adjourned sine die. 

At each session of the joint assembly the question as to whether any 
vote in the joint assembly was necessary was raised by protest 
against such proceedings upon the grounds that, Mr. Stephenson 


10 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


having received a majority of the votes cast in each house voting 
separately, no other or further duty remained for the joint assembly 
than that of reading the journals of the two houses of the proceedings 
in each relative to the election of a United States Senator on the day 
previous. These journals were read and the fact disclosed that in 
each house Mr. Stephenson had received a majority of all the votes 
cast. It remained only that ‘‘he shall be declared duly elected 
Senator.” The statute does not prescribe who shall declare the 
person receiving a majority of the votes in each house elected Senator, 
nor in what form such declaration shall be made. 

From the reading of the law it would seem that when the two 
Houses voting separately each gave Mr. Stephenson a clear majority 
and having met in joint session on the day following the vote in the 
separate houses, the journal of the proceedings of the two houses 
voting separately being read in joint convention and the result 
announced, the election was completed; the mere failure to declare 
him elected could not in any way defeat the will of the two houses as 
expressed in their separate votes. 

The failure to make a specific declaration of his election was not 
vital. The action of the governor and secretary of state in deferring 
the certificate of his election or in misstating the time of his election 
could not affect that election. 

If we are correct in assuming that the election of Isaac Stephenson 
was accomplished when the record of the two houses was read and 
announced in the joint assembly, then the failure or delay of the 
executive officers to perform their duty could in no way defeat his 
election as of the date of the meeting of the first joint assembly. 

ACTS OF BRIBERY CHARGED. 

Charges of bribery in the interest of Mr. Stephenson’s election had 
been freely made both before the subcommittee and before the legisla¬ 
tive investigating committee. Not one of these charges have been 
sustained by the testimony. 

The word “bribery” has been applied to many acts that do not 
constitute bribery. 

The procurement of advertising space or editorial comment in the 
newspapers upon the payment of money by or on behalf of a candi¬ 
date for office can not under any construction of law be held to be 
bribery. 

The procurement of the services of men to speak either publicly 
or personally on behalf of any candidate, or to canvass the electorate 
on his behalf, is not bribery under any reasonable construction of the 
law. 

If "the testimony were true that money was offered to Assembly- 
man Leuch to go upon the floor and vote for the purpose of effecting 
a quorum it would not constitute bribery. It was the duty of such 
member to go upon the floor and vote. 

The charge of an attempt to bribe II. It. Pestalozzi utterly failed 
of proof before your committee. 

The charge of unlawful dealings with the Milwaukee Free Press 
utterly failed of proof. It was conceded that Mr. Stephenson owned 
a controlling interest in that paper and he was certainly entitled to 
have its support and to sustain his interest in it. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


11 


BRIBER!'. 

The law of Wisconsin relative 1 to bribery is as follows: 

Sec. 39. Bribery of signers to 'petitions , etc. —1. Any person who shall offer, or with 
knowledge of the same permit any person to offer for his benefit, any bribe to a voter 
to induce him to sign any * * * nomination paper * * * and any person 
who shall accept any such bribe or promise of gain of any kind in the nature of a bribe 
as consideration for signing the same, whether such bribe or promise of gain in the 
nature of a bribe be offered or accepted before or after such signing, or any candidate 
who shall knowingly cause a nomination paper, or papers, to be signed in his behalf 
by more than the maximum number of qualified electors provided for his district by 
subdivision 5 of section 11-5 of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon 
trial and conviction thereof be punished by fine of not less than $25 nor more than 
$500 or by imprisonment in the county jail of not less than 10 days or more than 6 
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 

Penalties: Caucus and general election laws applicable. —2. Any act declared an 
offense by the general laws of this State concerning caucuses and elections shall also, 
in like case, be an offense in primaries and shall be punished in the same form and 
manner as therein provided, and all the penalties and provisions of the law as to 
such caucuses and elections, except as herein otherwise provided, shall apply in 
such case with equal force and to the same extent as though fully set forth in this act. 

Sec. 40. General election laws applicable (secs. 11-25). —The provisions of the statutes 
now in force in relation to the holding of elections, the solicitation of voters at the polls, 
the challenging of voters, the manner of conducting elections, of counting the ballots 
and making return thereof, and all other kindred subjects, shall apply to all primaries 
in so far as they are consistent with this act, the intent of this act being to place the 
primary under the regulation and protection of the laws nowin force as to elections. 

Sec. 263. Bribery at elections (sec. 4478).— The following persons shall be deemed 
guilty of bribery at elections: 

1. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person 
on his behalf, give, lend, or agree to give, or lend, or offer, promise or promise to 
procure or endeavor to procure any money or valuable consideration, to or for any 
voter, to or for any person on hehalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order 
to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or do any such act as aforesaid, 
corruptly, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any elec¬ 
tion. 

2. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person 
on his behalf, give or procure, or agree to give or procure, or offer, promise, or endeavor 
to procure any office, place of employment, public or private, to or for any voter, or 
to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to 
induce such voter to vote or refrain from voting, or do any such act as aforesaid, cor¬ 
ruptly, on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election. 

3. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person 
on his behalf, make any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement as 
aforesaid to or for any person in order to induce such person to procure or endeavor to 
procure the election of any person to a public office, or the vote of any voter at any 
election. 

4. Every person who shall, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, 
promise, procurement, or agreement, procure, or engage, promise or endeavor to 
procure the election of any person to a public office or the vote of any voter at any 
election. 

5. Every person who shall advance or pay or cause to be paid any money to or for 
the use of any other person with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall 
be expended in bribery at any election, or who shall knowingly pay or cause to be 
paid any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any election. 

Penalty. —And any person so offending shall be punished by imprisonment in the 
State prison for a term of not less than six months nor more than two years: Provided, 
That the foregoing shall not be construed to extend to any money paid or agreed to be 
paid for or on account of any legal expenses authorized by law and bona fide incurred 
at or concerning any election. 

Sec. 264 (sec. 4478a). The following persons shall also be deemed guilty of bribery 
at elections: 


1 Reference is to “Election Laws of Wisconsin,” published by J. A. Frear, secretary of state, 1908. 



12 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


1. Every voter who shall, before or during any election, directly or indirectly, by 
himself or by any other person on his behalf, receive, agree, or contract for any money 
gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place of employment, public or private, 
for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or 
agreeing to refrain from voting at any election. 

2. Every person who shall, after any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or 
by any other person in his behalf, receive any money or valuable consideration on 
account of any person having voted or refrained from voting or having induced any 
other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election; and any voter or other person 
so offending shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than one 
month nor more than one year. 

Sec. 266. Office obtained by bribery , vacant {sec. 4481). —Any person who shall obtain 
any office or shall have been elected to any office at any election, at which election 
he shall have induced or procured any elector to vote for him for such office by bribery, 
shall be disqualified from holding said office, and he shall be ousted therefrom, and 
said office shall be deemed and held vacant, to be filled by election or appointment 
as other vacancies, according to law. 

Sec. 294. Bribery at caucas or convention {sec. 4479). —Any person being, or seeking 
to be, a candidate for any office at any election authorized by law who shall give, or 
promise to give, to any elector or other person any money or thing of value or any 
pecuniary advantage or benefit for the purpose of inducing or influencing such elector 
or other person to vote for him in any convention or meeting of the people held for 
the purpose of nominating any person or persons to be voted for at any such election 
to make him the nominee of any such convention or meeting and the candidate to be 
voted for for any office at such election, or who shall so give or promise any such thing 
to any such person for the purpose of inducing or influencing any person to sign any 
nomination paper which seeks to have him nominated as a candidate for any office to 
be so voted for; and any such elector or other person who shall ask, solicit, or receive 
any money or thing of value or any pecuniary advantage or benefit from such candi¬ 
date as a consideration or inducement for his vote at any such convention or meeting 
of the people, or his signature to any such paper, shall be punished by imprisonment 
in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500. 

Sec. 296. Bribery in connection with caucus {sec. 4542b). —Every person who, by 
bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from 
attending or voting at any preliminary meeting or caucus mentioned in sections Ila 
to Hi, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, 
inspector, or delegate whose office is therein created, or who shall give or offer to give 
any valuable thing or bribe to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done in 
relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention, or who shall interfere 
with or in any manner disturb any preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention held 
under said provisions shall be punished as provided in section 4542a. 

Sec. 298. Bribery of voter; disturbance at caucus or convention. —Every person who, 
by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter 
from attending or voting at any caucus mentioned in this act, or who shall give or offer 
to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate whose office is 
created by this act, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any 
elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus or conven¬ 
tion, or who shall interfere with or in any manner disturb any caucus or convention 
held under the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and 
upon conviction thereof shall be punished in the manner hereinafter provided. (Ch. 
341, 1899.) 

CHARGES OF CORRUPTION IN THE LEGISLATURE. 

On page 2271 of the Report of the State Senate Investigating Com¬ 
mittee an attempt is made to summarize the corruption alleged to 
exist in connection with the election by the legislature, and the first 
objection is that Mr. Stephenson was elected by the legislature by a 
majority of three votes while the charges of corruption against him 
were being investigated by the legislature. This charge seems hardly 
worthy of serious consideration. It was admitted that he was 
elected by the legislature, and there is no law or rule that would 
invalidate the election because of the pendency of these charges. 
That was a matter for the members of the legislature to consider in 
determining whether or not they would vote for him. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


IS 


ABSENT MEMBERS ON MARCH 4. 

| The next charge is that the election of Mr. Stephenson was made 
possible by three members, who, it is claimed, at the instigation of 
Mr. Stephenson’s managers and agents, absented themselves from 
the joint assembly when it became known that their presence would 
prevent the election of Mr. Stephenson, and it was charged that the 
absence of these three members had been procured by fraudulent or 
wrongful means by or on behalf of Mr. Stephenson. It was the only 
charge of corruption in connection with the election of Mr. Stephen¬ 
son by the legislature worthy of consideration. 

The result of the vote on March 4 consequent upon the absence of 
these three members is made plain in the testimony of Richard J. 
White (p. 1324) and by an examination of the journal of the joint 
assembly on March 4. On that day the total number of votes cast 
was 123, of which Isaac Stephenson received 63. 

The members of the legislature whose absence- from the chamber 
on March 4 was questioned were Messrs. Farrell, Ramsey, and 
Towne. 

On March 3 Farrell voted for Neal Brown, Ramsey voted for 
George W. Peck, and Towne did not vote at all. 

On March 2 Farrell and Ramsey voted for Neal Brown, and Towne 
voted for Lucknow. 

On March 1 neither Farrell, Ramsey, nor Towne voted at all. 

On February 27 Ramsey voted for Wall, Farrell voted for Neal 
Brown, and Towne did not vote at all. 

On February 26 Towne voted for Thomas A. Stewart; neither 
Farrell nor Ramsey seem to have voted. 

These instances are cited to show that on the face of the trans¬ 
action there was nothing unusual in the absence of either of the 
three absentees on March 4, and nothing in their absence to raise 
the presumption of corruption therein. 

It is true that had these three members been present and voted 
the total vote would have been 126, and the 63 votes received by 
Mr. Stephenson would not have elected, but the evidence clearly 
establishes the fact that Mr. Ramsey, one of the three absentees, 
was paired with Mr. Fenelon and that such pairs had been univer¬ 
sally recognized, so that Mr. Ramsey can not be said to have been 
absent for any corrupt purpose, nor would his absence from the 
joint assembly affect the result of the vote. Being paired, he could 
not have voted. In that event, had Farrell and Towne been pres¬ 
ent the total vote would have been 125, of which Mr. Stephenson 
received 63. Sixty-three would have been a majority and would 
have elected Mr. Stephenson, so that the absence of Farrell and 
Towne did not affect the result of the election, and it can not there¬ 
fore be said that the election was brought about through corrupt 
practices so far as the absence of Farrell and Towne was concerned. 

It is not charged that any other member who voted for Mr. Ste¬ 
phenson did so either from corrupt motives or actions on his own part 
or that he was procured to do so by any corrupt action on the part of 
any person in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. 

The votes cast for Mr. Stephenson were those that had been con¬ 
sistently supporting him throughout the contest. There was no 
change in his favor upon which any presumption of corruption could 
be based. 


14 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


Does the evidence show or tend to show that there were corrupt 
measures or unlawful methods adopted to secure the absence of 
either Farrell or Towne ? 

There has been much sensational testimony introduced before the sub¬ 
committee, which was heard largely because such testimony had been 
received by the legislative investigating committee for the purpose 
of showing bribery or corrupt methods in connection with the absence 
of Ramsey, Farrell, and Towne. It was not shown that any money 
had been traced to either of these men from any source in connection 
with the matter; but it was claimed that a fund had been raised to 
be used for corrupt purposes, and that, on the assumption that such 
fund had been raised, it must at least in part have been used to bring 
about the absence of these three members of the legislature. 

It was claimed that Senator Stephenson had entered into an 
arrangement with Edward Hines and R. J. Shields for using money 
for corrupt purposes to be furnished by Mr. Stephenson, and much 
hearsay testimony was introduced for the purpose of establishing 
such fact. There can be no question but what the effort to establish 
any such charge utterly failed. There was no evidence upon which 
any reasonable conclusion that such corruption fund had been either 
raised or used could be based. 

The charge as to a meeting between the three absentees or some of 
them and Mr. Regan and Mr. Puelicher at the Plankington House in 
Milwaukee centered about the testimony taken before the legislative 
investigating committee of a witness, Frank T. Wagner, who was 
utterly discredited both at the legislative investigation and by 
testimony introduced before the subcommittee. It was shown that 
he is now under sentence in the penitentiary for perjury for having 
testified to seeing these men in the Plankington Hotel and hearing 
a conversation upon which the charge that they had entered into a 
corrupt bargain at that time rested. All the testimony in regard to 
such a transaction fell to the ground, and was so manifestly without 
foundation as to call for no consideration except its dismissal. 


CHARGE OF BRIBERY OF OTHER MEMBERS, 



There seems to have been some remark on the part of Mr. Damo- 
chowski and Mr. Lyons as to the tender of money being made them 
in connection with this election, but on the witness stand they both 
stated that whatever statements they made in that regard were made 
in jest and that there was no foundation in truth for them. 

Some sensational testimony was introduced in regard to state¬ 
ments made by Mr. R. J. Shields as to having received money or 
handled money in the interest of Mr. Stephenson in a corrupt manner 
in dealing with members of the legislature, and members of the 
senate legislative investigating committee had gone to the office of 
a certain attorney in Chicago and there met Mr. Wirt Cook of Duluth, 
Minn., who recited to them some hearsay statements as to conversa¬ 
tions and acts which were fully investigated by the subcommittee and 
found to be entirely without foundation. 

We may therefore safely dismiss the charges of corruption in con¬ 
nection with the action of the legislature in electing Mr. Stephenson, 
whether such election is held to have been on January 26 or on March 
4, 1909. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


15 


GENERAL CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION. 

It appears that Mr. Stephenson contributed $2,000 to the Repub¬ 
lican State central committee. Against this contribution no legiti¬ 
mate objection can be urged. It was not in violation of any law 
nor for other than general election purposes. 

It was also shown by testimony that Mr. Stephenson before the 
primary gave money to C. C. Wellensgard, Levi H. Bancroft, and 
Thomas Reynolds, who were candidates for the legislature. These 
men testified that they used the money in the interest of Mr. Stephen¬ 
son at the direct primaries. If we eliminate Mr. Stephenson from 
the direct primaries the contributions which he made to these candi¬ 
dates for nomination and election to the legislature would be in viola¬ 
tion of no law. It appears from the testimony that they were at 
the time voluntary and ardent supporters of Mr. Stephenson regard¬ 
less of any money which they may have received or which may have 
been placed in their hands by him for any purpose. 

There is not sufficient evidence upon which to base a charge of 
bribery or any other charge that would affect the validity of the 
election of Mr. Stephenson in either of these cases. 

DIRECT PRIMARY. 

The subcommittee, in determining the scope of the investigation, was 
confronted with the question as to how far, if at all, the charges 
affecting the candidacy of Isaac Stephenson before the direct primary 
should be considered. 

The State legislative committee had directed its attention prin¬ 
cipally to the direct primary and the conduct of the candidates 
therein. 

It was doubtless competent for the legislature to provide for direct 
primaries for the nomination of candidates for the legislature and to 
place legal restrictions about them to secure the integrity of their 
elections, but, as herein elsewhere more fully stated, it is not compe¬ 
tent for the legislature to provide for the nomination of candidates 
for the United States Senate at direct primaries. 

The status of Mr. Stephenson at such primaries is not comparable 
to that of candidates for the legislature or for any State oflice. 

The language of the resolution under which the subcommittee acted 
directs it to report whether “in the election of Isaac Stephenson there 
were used or employed corrupt methods or practices,” and the lan¬ 
guage of the last paragraph of section 1 of the resolution, bringing the 
matter to the attention of the United States Senate, strictly con¬ 
strued, refers only to the election. 

When we speak of the election of a United States Senator under 
existing constitutional and legislative provisions we contemplate only 
the election by the legislature of the State. There is as yet no recog¬ 
nition to be given extra-legislative proceedings in the nature of what 
is termed “direct primaries,” no such method of selection being 
recognized by any law of the United States. 

The subcommittee has, however, brought to the attention of the Sen¬ 
ate in the record of its proceedings all the facts obtainable relating to 
the conduct of the primary. Should it be the judgment of the Senate 
that such facts are irrelevant, then the consideration would be limited 



16 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


to matters concerning the election of members of the legislature, 
and the acts and conduct of members of the legislature and candi¬ 
dates in relation to the election of a Senator by the legislature. 

The direct primary, legally speaking, is no part of an election of a 
United States Senator. The duty of an election of a Senator does not 
under any law rest with the electorate, but is vested by the Consti¬ 
tution solely in the legislature. The legislature electing had no exist¬ 
ence until after the general election. The nomination of such mem¬ 
bers at the primary vested in the nominees not even an inchoate 
status. A State may give force and effect to a direct primary law 
providing for the nomination of candidates for State or minor offices 
to be elected under the laws of the State, but the legislature has no 
power to regulate in any manner or to any extent the election of a 
United States Senator, and there is no such proceeding known under 
any law of the United States as the nomipation of a candidate for the 
United States Senate. 

The question arises, Can any act in contravention of a law that 
is absolutely void work a forfeiture of any right to an office vested 
through the compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United 
States? Did the proceedings preceding and at the direct primary 
relative to a choice for United States Senator amount to more than a 
“straw vote” ? 

The mere fact that the Legislature of Wisconsin had undertaken 
to include a senatorial selection within the provisions of its direct¬ 
primary law, in the absence of power to so legislate, could not affect 
the validity of an election by the legislature made pursuant to national 
law; this must be obvious from fhe fact that the legislature was not 
in duty bound to elect anyone or consider anyone a candidate for 
election because of the action of the direct primary. It might have 
ignored such action altogether, and its having done so would not in 
any way affect the validity of its action. 

There is no law of the United States recognizing such a thing as 
“candidacy” for the United States Senate, and no legal status is 
given to the frame of mind constituting an intention on the part of a 
man or his friends that he become a candidate before the legislature. 

The question also arises as to the period when a man can be charged 
with responsibility for his acts so as to affect the validity of his sub¬ 
sequent election by the legislature. 

It frequently occurs that none of the men who are avowed candi¬ 
dates are chosen. The matter rests solely with the legislature, and 
under existing laws one legislature can not dictate the rule governing 
a subsequent legislature in the manner of its procedure relative to 
matters resting entirely within its discretion. 

It would be entirely within the power of a legislature, charged with 
the responsibility of electing a United States Senator before proceed¬ 
ing to elect a Senator, to repeal any legislation enacted by a previous 
legislature which placed a limit upon or directed its action. 

It seems from this consideration of the question we must conclude 
that the direct-primary proceedings can not be held to affect the 
validity of an election oy the legislature. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


17 


FAILURE TO FILE PROPER EXPENSE ACCOUNT. 

The fifteenth specific charge is based upon the failure or neglect of 
Isaac Stephenson to make and file an expense account under the laws 
of Wisconsin. This requirement is under section 270 of the election 
laws which provides that every person who shall be a candidate 
before any convention or at any primary or election to fill an office 
for which a nomination paper or certificate of nomination may be 
filed, shall, within thirty days after the election held to fill such 
office, make out and file with the officer empowered by law to issue 
the certificate of election to such office or place, a statement in writ¬ 
ing, etc., and that any person failing to comply with this section 
shall be punished by fine of not less than $25 or more than $500. 
This being a penal statute, the validity of an election could not be 
affected by the failure to comply with it. 

GENERAL COMMENT. 

The rule adopted by the several candidates for said office seems to 
have been unanimous in regard to filing expense accounts. 

Senator Stephenson’s expense account was $107,793.05. 

S. A. Cook’s expense account was $42,293.29. 

William H. Hatton’s expense account was $26,413. 

Francis E. McGovern’s expenditure was $11,063.88. 

Neal Brown’s expense account was $1,075.87. 

The total expenditures of all candidates for the office of United 
States Senator before the primary election was about $225,000. 

Less than one-half of the voters at the general election voted at the 
primary. The total vote cast in the Republican primaries for the 
nomination of United States Senator was 182,915, being 81 per cent 
of the total primary vote cast by all political parties for Senator. 

The total vote cast in the Democratic Party for United States 
Senator was 37,479, or about 17 per cent of the total primary vote 
of all parties cast for Senator, and about 23 per cent of the total 
Democratic vote cast for governor at the general election. 

Mr. Stephenson, a Republican candidate, received 56,909 votes. 

Mr. Cook, a Republican candidate, received 47,825 votes. 

Mr. McGovern, a Republican candidate, received 42,631 votes. 

Mr. Hatton, a Republican candidate, received 35,552 votes. 

Mr. Brown, a Democratic candidate, received 24,937 votes. 

Mr. Hoyt, a Democratic candidate, received 12,227 votes. 

Mr. Rummel, Social Democratic candidate, received 4,047 votes. 

On the basis of the total vote received by each senatorial candidate 
and the total cost of each candidate’s campaign: 

Mr. Stephenson , 3 pent $1.89 for every vote cast for him. 

Mr. Cook spent $0.88 for every vote cast for him. 

Mr. Hatton spent $0.85 for every vote cast for him. 

Mr. McGovern spent $0.26 for every vote cast for him. 

Mr. Brown spent $0.42 for every vote cast for him. 

Mr. Hoyt spent $0.16 for every vote cast for him. 

And there was spent in behalf of Mr. Rummel, the Socialist Demo¬ 
cratic candidate, about $1 per vote. 

S. Rept. 349, 62-2-2 


18 


SUN A TOR I'KOM WISCONSIN. 


Were it possible to hold that Mr. Stephenson was subject to the 
same restrictions under the laws of Wisconsin as a candidate for a 
State office, we would feel compelled to enter more fully upon the 
nature and character of the expenditures made by him and on his 
behalf during the primary campaign. 

The amount of money expended bv Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cook, 
Mr. Hatton, and Mr. McGovern in the primary campaign was so 
extravagant and the expenditures made by and on behalf of these 
gentlemen were made with such reckless disregard of propriety as to 
justify the sharpest criticism. Such expenditures were in violation 
of the fundamental principles underlying our system of Government, 
which contemplated the selection of candidates by the electors and 
not the selection of the electors by the candidate. 

Regardless of any statute requiring that strict accounts be kept of 
money expended by and on behalf of candidates, a candidate and 
every man representing him should know that public opinion would 
expect the parties to place and maintain themselves in a position so 
that if any of their acts were questioned they could justify such acts 
to the extent of giving every detail in regard thereto. 

While I do not believe that the law of Wisconsin could constitute 
any man a candidate or place him in the position of and under the 
responsibilities of a candidate for an office over which the State had 
no control and which was not to be filled under any law of the State, 
yet I feel impelled to criticize the acts of those in charge of the ex¬ 
penditure of the money of men who are called candidates for the 
Senate, and especially of Mr. Stephenson, in the irresponsible and 
reckless manner in which they disbursed the money furnished them 
by Mr. Stephenson during the period of the primary campaign. 

The failure to keep detailed accounts, the destruction of memo¬ 
randa, the shifting of records and papers concerning the campaign 
from one place to another, the adoption of mysterious methods and 
roundabout ways in regard to matters that might just as well have 
been performed in open daylight in the presence of the people, would 
go far toward creating the impression that there was some occasion 
for Mr. Stephenson’s representatives to avoid candor and to obscure 
conditions. 

The subcommittee has gone carefully through all of the letters and 
correspondence which had been in the hands of Mr. Stephenson and 
his managers and which had been shifted from Milwaukee to Marinette 
and from Marinette to points in Michigan, and back again, under 
most unusual and mysterious circumstances. These letters are not 
out of the ordinary political correspondence of campaign managers 
and citizens whose votes, influence, or services are solicited in behalf 
of a candidate. 

The letters transmitting and acknowledging the receipt of money 
have been considered separately from those giving information in 
regard to political conditions and instructions in regard to how 
political work shall be done. There is nothing in the letters trans¬ 
mitting or acknowleding the receipt of money that would seem to add 
anything to the information given by witnesses in explaining these 
expenditures so far as they could explain them. The subcommittee 
has not thought it necessary to print this correspondence, which is in 
evidence and might be held to constitute a part of the record of the 
investigation. In our judgment, it would add nothing in the way of 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 19 

assistance to the committee in ascertaining the facts necessary and 
proper to be considered in connection with the investigation. 

Were a candidate for a State office in Wisconsin to conduct a cam¬ 
paign in the manner in which the campaign of Mr. Stephenson, and 
of other men who sought election to the United States Senate, were 
conducted, it would be very difficult to justify such conduct under the 
laws of the State. 

The joint senatorial primary investigating committee in its report 
(submitted Mar. 18, 1910, but never acted upon), after reviewing the 
testimony, says: 

Your committee believes that the Republican senatorial candidates and their man¬ 
agers did not deliberately plan to violate the law, but in their desire to win these can¬ 
didates, particularly Stephenson, Cook, and Hatton, conducted their campaigns with 
the idea of getting results, and men were hired and money spent, and State officials 
and employees and members of the legislature were used without much regard to 
propriety. All of the Republican candidates probably spent all they could afford 
and the amount spent by the different candidates was probably limited more by their 
ability to spend than their appreciation of the moral effect of the expenditure of such 
large sums of money to secure the nomination. 

This committee evidently looked upon the result of the direct 
primary as shown by the vote cast therein for each of the men who 
sought election to the United States Senate as constituting a legal 
nomination. I entertain a different view of that matter and look 
upon the primary nomination as a mere expression of a choice with¬ 
out legal effect, and do not recognize such expression as binding upon 
the legislature. 


CONCLUSION. 

The testimony clearly shows that the candidates felt compelled to 
spend more money than they wanted to spend. The pressure upon 
them from those who were undertaking to manage their campaigns 
seems to have been very great and persistent, but I can find nothing 
in the testimony nor in the circumstances or conditions surrounding 
the senatorial contest which resulted in the election of Mr. Stephenson 
that in my judgment would justify the committee in recommending 
that the seat be vacated, or that he be declared not legally elected 
to the United States Senate; and therefore I recommend that the 
Senate find that the charges preferred by the Legislature of Wiscon¬ 
sin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the 
State of Wisconsin, are not true, and that Isaac Stephenson be ac¬ 
quitted of such charges. 


W. B. Heyburn. 





■ . 


' 


■ 












VIEWS OF MR. POMERENE AND MR. SUTHERLAND. 


The Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections authorized 
and directed its subcommittee “ to investigate certain charges pre¬ 
ferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a 
Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, and to 
report whether ‘ there was used or employed corrupt methods or 
practices 5 in his election.” 

Without intending to specifically enumerate the charges made or 
to review in extenso the evidence in support or in refutation thereof, 
it will be sufficient for our purpose to classify the charges and evi¬ 
dence pertaining thereto, as follows: 

First, those connected with the proceedings of the legislature 
affecting the election; and, 

Second, those growing out of the primary election. 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE. 

Each house, pursuant to the Federal statute, convened for the 
election of the United States Senator on January 26, 1909. The 
senate consisted of 33 members and the assembly of 100 members. 
Thirty-three.members of the senate were present, and, before ballot¬ 
ing, passed a resolution providing that “any senator who does not 
wish to vote for a candidate may vote by answering 4 present.’ ” 
The roll was called, and 17 senators voted for candidates, 12 of whom 
voted for Isaac Stephenson. The 16 other senators simply voted 
“ present.” In other words, a quorum, in the language of the statute, 
voted 'for “ one person for Senator in Congress,” and of this quorum 
Isaac Stephenson received a majority. While the vote “ present ” 
of the 16 senators was in accordance with the resolution passed, we 
do not’believe it could either add to or detract from the requirements 
of the statute. All members, no doubt, should have voted for “ some 
person,” but 16 voted “ present,” which was equivalent to a blank 
vote. 

In the language of the majority of the committee in Ransom v. 
Abbott, “ Senate Election Cases,” page 400, “ The vote must be for 
a person , not a blank—in fact, not for a myth, but for a person.” 

Without intending to review the authorities it is clearly established 
that “ votes knowingly cast for a candidate who can not possibly ex¬ 
ercise the function of the office if elected are thrown away.” (State 
ex rel. Bancroft v. Frear, 144 Wise., 87.) And, if this be true, it must 
follow that a mere vote of u present” is nothing more than a vote for 
“ no person,” or, in other words, a “ blank,” and should not, therefore, 
be counted in determining whether Senator Stephenson received a 
majority of the quorum of those who voted for “one person for 
Senator,” and thereby complied with the letter and spirit of the 
statute. 


21 


22 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


For other authorities bearing upon this proposition see Sawyer v. 
Makie, 149 Mass., 269; “ Cooley on Constitution Limitations,” 932, 
Note 1; Rushville Gas Co. v. Rushville, 6 L. R. A., 315; Hopkins v. 
Duluth, 81 Minn., 189; and Commonwealth v. Cluley, 56 Pa. St., 270. 

On the same day in the assembly 82 votes out of the 100 assemblymen 
were cast, and Isaac Stephenson received 60 out of the 82 votes. He. 
therefore, received, in our judgment, “ a majority of the whole num¬ 
ber of votes cast in each house.” The vote thus cast was entered 
upon the journal of the senate and of the house. In conformity 
with the provisions of the Federal statute, the members of the two 
houses convened at 12 o’clock noon, on the day following, in joint 
assembly. The journal of each house was read, and showed the re¬ 
sult of the balloting on the previous day in each house separately, 
as hereinbefore stated. Having received a majority of all of the 
votes cast in each house, it was the duty of the presiding officer to 
declare Senator Stephenson duly elected. This was purely a minis¬ 
terial duty, and the mere fact that he failed to perform that duty 
could not, under any legal principle, undo that which was legally 
done in the separate and joint sessions, and, except for this failure of 
the presiding officer, was completely done. 

Instead of declaring the result, over the protest of Senator Hud- 
nall, a ballot was ordered and taken on that day and on each suc¬ 
ceeding day until and including the 4th day of March, 1909. Prior 
to March 4 no one in any of the sessions received a majority of the 
votes cast. On March 4 there were 123 votes cast, of which Isaac 
Stephenson received 63, and he was then declared duly elected. 

CHARGES OF CORRUPTION IN ACTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 

Charges of corruption were made to the effect that— 

(a) Assemblyman Leuch was offered money to go upon the floor 
and vote for the purpose of effecting a quorum; 

(b) That Assemblyman Joseph Damochowski had been offered 
$1,500 for his vote; and 

( c ) That Assemblymen Farrel, Ramsey, and Towne absented them¬ 
selves from the joint session of the joint assembly on March 4 through 
corrupt influences. 

CHARGE AS TO ASSEMBLYMAN LEUCH. 

He testified that David H. Davies, on March 1, 1909, said: “I 
have authority to tell you that you can have anything you want if 
you will stay in the joint convention to-day and vote.” Mr. Davies 
denied having any such conversation, and swore that he neither au¬ 
thorized nor was in a position to pay or promise Mr. Leuch anything 
whatsoever. Whether this conversation occurred or not, there is 
no evidence connecting it directly with Senator Stephenson, or even 
indirectly through any authorized agent. 

CHARGE AS TO ASSEMBLYMAN DAMOCHOWSKI. 

There was testimony to the effect that Joseph A. Damochowski 
had said to several parties that he had been offered $1,500 for his vote 
in the assembly. He admitted that he had so stated upon several 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


23 


occasions, but in explanation thereof said that any statements he made 
to that effect were in jest, and that no such offer was in fact made. 
Outside of these admitted statements, there was no evidence either 
that any bribe had been offered to or received by him, and no evidence 
tending to connect Senator Stephenson or his managers with this 
alleged attempt to bribe. 

MEMBERS ABSENTING THEMSELVES ON MARCH 4. 

On March 4, 123 members of the joint assembly were present and 
voting. Sixty-three members being a majority of those voting, cast 
their ballots for Mr. Stephenson, and, having for the first time 
received a majority of those voting in the joint session, he was duly 
declared elected. 

We think it is fair to say that the record shows that an effort 
was made by some of the friends of Mr. Stephenson either to pair 
some of those who were opposed to Stephenson’s election with those 
who were absent and favorable to his election, or to secure the ab¬ 
sence of those who were opposed to his election, for the purpose of 
reducing the number who might be in the joint session and voting, 
and thereby enable those who were favorable to his election to have 
a majority of the votes cast. 

Richard J. White, a friend of Mr. Stephenson, succeeded in pair¬ 
ing Ramsey, a Democrat, who was opposed to Stephenson’s election, 
with Mr. Fenelon, who was a supporter of Mr. Stephenson and be¬ 
cause of sickness was not able to attend the session. 

Towne, a Democrat, left the chamber just before the voting began 
and was taken into a cloakroom by C. C. Wayland, one of Mr. 
Stephenson’s lieutenants, and there held in conversation while the 
balloting was going on, and we have no doubt that Wayland pur¬ 
posely detained him, and Towne—to say the least—was indifferent, 
about the situation. 

Farrel left the assembly room before the roll was called and went 
to a cafe for luncheon, and did not return until sometime after the 
result of the election had been declared. The absence of Towne and 
Farrel while the joint assembly was in session is not consistent with 
their duties as assemblymen, nor is their explanation satisfactory. 
But, whatever the facts may be, there is no evidence in the record, 
nor any obtainable, so far as the committee knows, which would 
justify the conclusion that the absence of any of these three men 
was secured by corrupt means. It was necessary for Ramsey, Farrel, 
and Towne all to have been present and voting in order to prevent 
Stephenson from having a majority vote in the session. The other 
seven absentees were satisfactorily accounted for, and no suspicion, 
so far as we know, attaches to them. 

We therefore conclude: 

First, that the election in fact occurred on January 26, 1909; and 

Second, that there is no evidence justifying the conclusion that 
corrtipt “methods or practices” were employed in securing the vote 
on March 4. 1909, even if it should be held that the election took 
place on March 4. 

PRIMARY ELECTION IRREGULARITIES. 

Senator Stephenson’s account filed with the Secretary of State 
shows that there was expended by him and through his committee 


24 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


in connection with the primary election $107,793.05. He received 
56,909 votes, which cost him $1.89 for every vote cast. 

These expenditures, for the purpose of this report, may be divided 
into the following classes: 

First, moneys paid out to persons employed by him or in his behalf 
to circulate nomination papers in order to get the number of signa¬ 
tures required by the Wisconsin statutes before his name could be 
placed upon the ticket. 

Second, moneys paid out as follows: 

(«) to newspapers for political advertising; 

(b) for editorial support; 

(c) for lithographs, campaign material, postage, telephone, tele¬ 
graph, and express charges; 

( d ) office expenses, including rent, clerk hire, and assistants. 

Third, payment for services of speakers, hall rent, music, rind for 

men devoting their time and efforts in cultivating Stephenson senti¬ 
ment throughout the State; 

Fourth, moneys expended for workers at the polls, and for con¬ 
veyances and services in getting out the voters; 

Fifth, for drinks and cigars; | 

Sixth, money given to C. C. Wellensgard, L. L. Bancroft, and 
Thomas Reynolds, who were candidates for the legislature, to be 
used by them in the interest of Senator Stephenson: 

Seventh, money paid to the game warden, John W. Stone, for use 
in the Senator’s campaign; 

Eighth, $2,000 contributed by Senator Stephenson to the State 
campaign committee for general election purposes; and 

Ninth, expenses incurred during the session of the general assembly 
in opening and maintaining headquarters at Madison from the 
beginning of the session until after March 4. 1909. and for hotel 
bills and traveling expenses. 

No part of the contribution to the general campaign committee 
or the expenses incident to the headquarters during the session of 
the general assembly were ever reported to the secretary of state. 

The above we believe to fairly represent the different classes of 
expenditure, which were disclosed by the evidence. 

There was no evidence before the committee from which it could 
be fairly concluded that any of this money was expended for “cor¬ 
rupt methods or practices,” unless those recited are to be construed 
as corrupt under the provisions of the Wisconsin statutes. 

MANAGEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN. 

The testimony showed that Senator Stephenson had on deposit 
in the Marshall & Illsley Bank $50,000, which was used in the cam¬ 
paign, with other added as required. His campaign was in charge 
of E. A. Edmonds, J. H. Puelicher, and Rodney Sackett. 

There are 71 counties in the State and 2,200 election precincts. 
The method of the managers was to employ a lieutenant or cam¬ 
paign manager in each of the counties. In several instances one man 
had charge of a number of counties. Arrangements were made with 
these managers by which sums of money would be placed in their 
hands varying from $100 or several hundred dollars to several thou¬ 
sand dollars. In some instances the manager was not given, and 



SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


25 


would not accept, compensation for his services. In others definite 
arrangements were made for the amount of compensation the man¬ 
ager was to receive, and in many cases the manager would determine 
and retain for himself such sum or sums as he deemed proper. It is 
quite clear that a very substantial part of the money expended in the 
organization of the several counties never went beyond the pockets 
of those who received it. The money expended by these managers, 
so far as the testimony discloses, was for one or more or all of the 
purposes above described. 


WISCONSIN ELECTION STATUTES. 

The Wisconsin statutes defining election offenses are fully set 
forth on pages 10,11, and 12 of the views submitted by Senator Hey- 
burn, chairman of the subcommittee, and it will not be necessary, 
therefore, to insert them here. 


APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS-NOMINATION PAPERS. 


Before a candidate for office is entitled to have his name, placed 
upon the ticket at a primary, the Wisconsin statute requires that pe¬ 
titions or nomination papers shall be filed, signed by at least 1 per 
cent of the voters of his party in at least each of six counties in the 
State, and in the aggregate not less than 1 per cent nor more than 
10 per cent of the total vote of his party in the State. 
p^The testimony shows that Senator Stephenson hired and paid men 
I to circulate his nomination papers in order to get the required num¬ 
ber of signatures, but there was no evidence showing that any money 
was paid, in the language of the statute, to induce anyone to sign 
his nomination papers, and we do not think it was seriously claimed 
b}^ those who were interested in the instigation of these proceedings 
that any money was unlawfully expended for this purpose. 

EXPENDITURES OF MONEY DURING THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN. 


Was it a violation of the statute to pay out money for political 
advertising in the newspapers, or for editorial support, or for litho¬ 
graphs, campaign material, or for telegrajDh, telephone, or express 
charges, or for office expenses, including rent and hire of assistants, 
or for the hiring of speakers, halls, rent, music, and for men devoting 
their time and efforts in cultivating Stephenson sentiment through¬ 
out the State, or to pay workers at the polls, or for conveyances and 
services in getting out the voters, or for money for drinks and cigars 
given in a social way during the campaign? 

A careful examination of the bribery statutes of Wisconsin wi 11 
indicate clearly that the expenditures of money of the character re¬ 
cited only comes within the inhibitions thereof, when they are made 
corruptly, unless section 298 forbids it. This section reads: 

Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or 
attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any caucus men¬ 
tioned in this act, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe 
to any officer, inspector, or delegate, whose office is created by this act. or who 
shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any elector as a con¬ 
sideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus or convention 
* * * shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, etc. 



SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


26 


None of these expenditures can come within any of the provisions 
I of this section., unless it be a violation of this language: “ or who 
shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any elector 
as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus 
or convention.” 

It should be stated that by sections 39 and 40 of the election laws 
of Wisconsin, the criminal penalties applying to a caucus and elec¬ 
tions are made applicable to primary elections. 

If the words “ To give any valuable thing ” are to be given a com¬ 
prehensive and literal interpretation, and to prohibit the giving or 
offering of “ any valuable thing,” “ as a consideration for some act ” to 
be done, it would not have been necessary to write into the statute 
the words “ or bribe,” because the former expression would include 
the latter. The purpose of the statute is evidently to prohibit cor¬ 
rupt giving. 


Words of a general import in the statute are limited by words of restricted 
import immediately following and relating to the same subject. (36 Cyc., 1119, 
Nance v. Southern R. R. Co.. 149 N. C., 366.) 

“ In interpreting a statute, where the language is of doubtful 
meaning, the court will reject an interpretation which would make 
the statute harsh, oppressive, inequitable, or unduly restrictive of 
primary private rights.” (Nance v. Southern R. R. Co., 149 N. C., 
366.) To the same effect, State ex rel. v. Jackson, 168 Indiana, 389. 

Again, section 4543-C requires the filing of accounts of expendi¬ 
tures of a candidate. This must contemplate that there are expendi¬ 
tures which can not in any wise be regarded as a violation of the 
Wisconsin laws. If a literal interpretation is to be given to the 
words, “ any valuable thing * * * as a consideration for some 

act to be done,” and some expenditures be prohibited, whether mor¬ 
ally corrupt or incorrupt, would the legislature require the candi¬ 
date to convict himself by filing an account ? This is a criminal 
statute, and it must be strictly construed against the State and in 
favor of the defendant when charged with its violation. 

Applying these rules, therefore, it would seem that the statute 
prohibited the giving of any valuable thing corruptly or in the nature 
of a bribe. 

We have no sympathy whatever with the expenditure of money in 
excessive amounts, whether in a senatorial or any other political 
campaign. That an expenditure of $107,793.05 is an excessive 
amount to be spent in the candidacy for the office of United States 
Senator, which pays a salary for six years’ service amounting to 
$45,000, goes without question; that it is demoralizing and should 
be prevented can not be denied; that some of this money might have 
been spent corruptly may, for the sake of the argument, be conceded, 
but it is not sufficient that possible or even probable corruption or 
bribery exists. The evidence must show it, and this case, like all 
other cases, must be determined from the facts as they are disclosed 
in the trial and under the law as it then existed. The committee, 
proceeding upon the assumption that the expenditure of so large a 
sum of money required the fullest investigation and explanation, 
probed every rumor and followed every clue which was brought to 
its attention, with the result that no evidence was discovered which 
would justify the conclusion that any of this sum of money was 
corruptly or illegally spent. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


27 


At the time of this primary there was no statute, either State or 
National, limiting the amount of expenditures. There is no judicial 
or legislative decision, so far as we are advised, limiting the amount 
which may be legally expended. Can we, in the face of the fact that 
the Congress of the United States and the General Assembly of the 
State of Wisconsin prior to this election failed to limit "election 
expenditures, now arbitrarily determine that because this sum was 
spent it was illegally and fraudulently expended, and therefore 
vacate the Senator’s seat? Can it be said that the expenditure of 
such a sum is in contravention of a public policy which must be given 
the force and effect of a statute? If so, where does public policy 
draw the line between what shall be a legal and an illegal amount ? 
The situation is unfortunate, but the Congress and the State Legisla¬ 
ture are to blame for not having limited the expenses by statute. 
Laws can not be enforced retroactively, and surely this case must be 
decided in accordance with what the law then was and not in accord¬ 
ance with what the law ought to be. Since that election the State 
of Wisconsin has limited the amount of expenditure in a senatorial 
campaign to $7,500 and the Federal Government has limited it to 
$ 10 , 000 . 

EFFECT OF THE PRIMARY LAW. 

It is strenuously argued on behalf of Senator Stephenson that even 
if the primary law of Wisconsin was violated its provisions are 
unconstitutional, because section 3 of Article I of the Federal Con¬ 
stitution provides that Senators shall be chosen by the legislature and 
because section 4 gives Congress the right to prescribe the time and 
manner of holding elections for Senators and that this power has 
been exercised by the Congress in the manner prescribed by sections 
14 and 15 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 

The Wisconsin primary law, in substance, provides (chap. 451, 
Laws of 1903) as follows: 

Party candidates for the office of United States Senator shall be nominated 
as other State officers. (Subdivision 3 of sec. 2.) Nomination papers for can¬ 
didates for the office of United States Senator shall be filed in the office of the 
secretary of state. (Subdivision 1 of sec. 6.) The person receiving the greatest 
number of votes at the primary as the candidate of the party for the office 
voted for shall be the candidate of that party for such office (subdivision 1, 
sec. 18), and the secretary of state is required to publish in the official State 
paper a statement of the result of the canvass of the primary as soon as the 
same is certified to him. 

These are all of the requirements found in the Wisconsin law per¬ 
taining to the nomination of party candidates for the office of United 
States Senators. 

May the people of a sovereign State not provide for a method of 
expressing their sentiment in the selection of a Senator who shall 
represent that State in the United States Senate? May they not 
petition in such form and manner as to them may seem proper? And 
if it is their desire to so petition, may they not prescribe the method 
of petitioning so as to make the result of this petition, whether it be 
in the form of a letter to the members of the general assembly or in 
the form of a primary, an honest expression of their views ? 

The constitutionality of the above provisions of the Wisconsin law 
was passed upon by the supreme court of that State in the case of 


28 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


State ex rel. Van Alstine v. Frear (142 Wise., 320). On page 349 
Barnes, J., in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, 
says: 

Our constitutions, State and National, guarantee the right of petition. Every 
citizen of the State has the right to petition the legislature asking that the 
candidate of his choice he elected United States Senator. Every citizen of a 
senatorial or assembly district has the right to petition his local representative 
to the same effect. The lawmaker is thus advised of public sentiment, a potent 
factor for him to consider in connection with other matters in arriving at a 
conclusion. Wherein does the primary nomination for United States Senator 
differ from the exercise of the right of petition? The legislative candidate is 
thereby informed of something that he has the right to know and of something 
that it is his duty to heed. He may not regard the verdict at the polls as 
obligatory, but should treat it as advisory. Moral suasion may be a perfectly 
legitimate agency to employ even in the election of a United States Senator. 
That the electors in the exercise of their guaranteed right of petition might do 
in substance and effect what they now do at the primaries hardly admits of 
controversy. The framers of the Constitution could not have supposed that 
there was any impropriety in the people advising their representatives of how 
they desired them to vote on the senatorship, else an exception would have been 
incorporated in the clause guaranteeing the right of petition, restricting its 
application to matters other than the election of United States Senators. 

It will be conceded that while the result of a primary election, 
under the present constitutional provisions, could not control the 
State senators and representatives in their choice of an United States 
Senator, would not an expression of the will of the people at 
a primary election have great weight with their representatives in 
casting their votes? And, if this be so, ought not the primary elec¬ 
tion held to declare this choice be carefully guarded by suitable 
penalties? We have no hesitancy in saying that if the evidence dis¬ 
closed the use of corrupt methods at the primaries, it would affect 
the result of the election by the general assembly, and the Senate 
would be justified in taking cognizance of that fact and unseating 
any Senator who was thus delinquent. 

MONEYS GIVEN TO CANDIDATES FOR THE LEGISLATURE. 

The testimony disclosed that Senator Stephenson, before the pri¬ 
mary, gave money to C. C. Wellensgard, L. H. Bancroft, and Thomas 
Reynolds, who were then candidates for the legislature. They did 
not live in the same district or county with Mr. Stephenson. They 
were his personal friends. The money was given them to be used 
in behalf of Senator Stephenson for the nomination a # s the Republi¬ 
can*" candidate for Senator. 

It may be said that this money was probably used by these men to 
further their own interests, as well as to further the interests of Mr. 
Stephenson. But, whether it was so used or not. there is no evidence 
that it was so used, or that it was given to them for that purpose. 

On the contrary, the affirmative and uncontradicted testimony is 
all to the effect that this money was used strictly in the interest of 
Mr. Stephenson and none of it to further the interest of any of the 
legislative candidates. 

MONEY PAID TO GAME WARDEN JOHN W. STONE. 

Mr. Stephenson’s campaign managers gave to John W. Stone, the 
game warden of the State, $2,849.50 for campaign purposes. This 
was distributed among a number of the deputy game wardens; he 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


29 


retained some portion of it himself, and in testifying before the legis¬ 
lative committee, falsely stated the amount he had paid out. 

Section 990-28 (sec. 28, ch. 363, 1905) provides: 

No officer, agent, clerk, or employee under the government of the State shall 
directly or indirectly solicit or receive or be in any manner concerned in solicit¬ 
ing or receiving any assessment, subscription, or contribution, or political 
service, whether voluntary or involutary for any political purpose whatever 
from any officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. 

This statute makes it an offense for any officer , agent, clerk, or 
employee under the government of the State to solicit or receive any 
assessment, subscription, or contribution, or political service from 
any officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. It is clear that this 
statute was not violated by Senator Stephenson, since he was not an 
officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. Moreover, the statute 
makes it an offense on the part of the recipient of the fund only. No 
offense is committed by the donor. It is true, the money should not 
have been paid to the game warden, and the giving of it does not 
show that fine discrimination which ought to be characteristic of 
men who are engaged in a campaign of this character. No law was 
violated by the donor, and this election can not be declared illegal 
because this expenditure was made. 

FILING OF ACCOUNTS. 

Section 4543-C of the revised statutes of Wisconsin requires the 
making out, and filing with the secretary of state, a statement in 
writing, subscribed and sworii to by the candidate— 

setting forth in detail each item in excess of five dollars in money, or property 
contributed, disbursed, expended, or promised by him, and to the best of his 
knowledge and belief by any other person or persons for him, or in his behalf, 
wholly or in part in endeavoring to secure or in any way in' connection with 
his nomination or election to such office or place, or in connection with the 
election of any other person at said election, the dates when, and the persons 
to whom, and the purpose for which all said sums were paid, expended, or 
promised by such candidate in any sum or sums whatever. 

No account whatever was filed of the amount contributed by 
Mr. Stephenson to the State campaign committee, nor of the amount 
expended during the session of the general assembly. The account 
which was filed of the expenses incurred in connection with the 
primary did not comply with the law in that it lumped the expenses; 
gave the names of but very few of the persons to whom money was 
paid; did not give the dates when expended, nor as fully as con¬ 
templated by the statutes the purposes for which expended. The 
account as filed was approved b} 7 the general counsel of Mr. Stephen¬ 
son without any examination of the statute, and simply because it 
conformed with certain accounts, which had been filed by prominent 
candidates for other offices. A careful examination of this account 
justifies the belief that it was purposely drawn so as to give to the 
public as little information as possible. 

The penalty for failing to comply with this statute is a fine only, 
and it does not provide for the forfeiture of the office. If it did, the 
statute to that extent would be unconstitutional, but Mr. Stephenson, 
because of his failure to file a proper account, has violated the statute 
and is subject to a fine. However, he must be absolved from any 
moral delinquency, because in the preparation and filing of his ac- 


30 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


count he consulted with counsel, and followed their advice, and if it 
was not properly done they were to blame rather than he. 

In addition to this, the validity of the election which had already 
taken place could not be affected by the failure to thereafter perform 
some act enjoined by the State statute. The election was already an 
accomplished fact and its validity must be determined by the facts 
theretofore or then existing. Anything done thereafter can not be 
regarded as a substantive ground for invalidating the election. Its 
only evidential value would be in reflecting light upon or as giving 
color to the preexisting facts. 

After a careful consideration of all the evidence and the law, we 
had no hesitancy in joining in the report presented by the subcom¬ 
mittee. 

We heartily approve these words of Senator Heyburn: 

The amount of money spent by Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hatton, and 
Mr. McGovern in the primary campaign was so extravagant, and the expendi¬ 
tures made by and on behalf of these gentlemen were made with such reckless 
disregard of propriety, as to justify the sharpest criticism. Such expenditures 
were in violation of the fundamental principles underlying our system of 
Government, which contemplated the selection of candidates by the electors 
and not the selection of the electors by the candidate. 

Regardless of any statute requiring that strict accounts be kept of money 
expended by and on behalf of candidates, a candidate and every man repre¬ 
senting him should know that public opinion would expect the parties to place 
and maintain themselves in a position so that if any of their acts were ques¬ 
tioned they could justify such acts to the extent of giving every detail in 
regard thereto. 

While I do not believe that the law of Wisconsin could constitute any man a 
candidate or place him in the position of and under the responsibilities of a 
candidate for an office over which the State had no control and which was not 
to be filled under any law of the State, yet I feel impelled to criticize the acts 
of those in charge of the expenditure of money of men who are called candi¬ 
dates for the Senate, and especially of Mr. Stephenson, in the irresponsible and 
reckless manner in which they disbursed the money furnished them by Mr. 
Stephenson during the period of the primary campaign. 

The failure to keep detailed accounts, the destruction of memoranda, the 
shifting of records and papers concerning the campaign from one place to an¬ 
other, the adoption of mysterious methods and roundabout ways in regard to 
matters that might just as well have been performed in open daylight in the 
presence of people, would go far toward creating the impression that there was 
some occasion for Mr. Stephenson’s representatives to avoid candor and to 
obscure conditions. 

While we have no doubt as to the correctness of the subcommittee’s 
finding, we do not want it to be understood that we question the 
propriety of filing charges challenging the validity of the election 
or of the making demand for an investigation either by the General 
Assembly of Wisconsin or by the United States Senate. 

An enormous sum of money had been expended. Messrs. Ed¬ 
munds and Sacket, who were in charge of the campaign as Mr. 
Stephenson’s managers, knew of the statute requiring the filing of 
an account of their expenditures. They destroyed all original rec¬ 
ords of accounts, though they kept what purported to be copies. 
They grouped these items and amounts in such a way that they gave 
no knowledge whatever to the public except the totals of each class 
of expenditures. The account was not filed until the last moment 
permitted by the statute. 

Mr. Puelicher, a banker, acted as treasurer. He did not open an 
account as depositors usually do. He received remittances, kept 
private memoranda, paid out cash, and made disbursements of these 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


31 


funds, but kept no record thereof upon the bank’s books. No other 
customer’s funds, either before or since, were received or disbursed 
in a similar way. There was an air of mystery about the entire 
affair. 

After the investigation by the committee of the general assembly 
was started Mr. Stephenson’s local counsel had such records and cor¬ 
respondence as had not already been destroyed moved out of the 
State for the purpose of keeping them beyond the jurisdiction of the 
general assembly. 

It may be said in passing, however, that the accounts were kept on 
card indexes, and Mr. Sacket gives as a reason for destroying them 
that they were made with lead pencil in many cases, and the writing 
was practically obliterated, so that he made copies and then de¬ 
stroyed the originals (Record, p. 161) because they were cumbersome 
and inconvenient (p. 523). And it may be further said that there 
seems to have been no substantial reason for moving the correspond¬ 
ence out of the State. It was all before the committee, and an ex¬ 
amination failed to disclose anything of an inculpatory or improper 
character which would render any concealment necessary. 

Can there be any wonder that the public became suspicious and 
the members of the general assembly, out of a decent sense of self- 
respect, should demand a thorough investigation? 

If Mr. Stephenson has been put to great expense and trouble, it 
is due, first, to the reckless expenditure of this large sum of money, 
and, second, to the studied and mysterious efforts of his managers 
and local attorneys to conceal the facts, up to and during the in¬ 
vestigation before the joint committee of the general assembly, and 
the separate committee of the State senate. 

But out of all this scandal and trouble much good has come. 
Public sentiment was aroused. The unlimited use of money has 
been condemned, and stringent corrupt-practices acts have been 
adopted, both by the General Assembly of the State of Wisconsin 
and by the Congress of the United States. 

Atlee Pomerene, 
Geo. Sutherland. 


62d Congress, ) 

SENATE. 

j Rept. 349, 

2d Session. ) 


{ Part 2. 


CHARGES RELATIVE TO THE ELECTION OF ISAAC 
STEPHENSON. 


February 19, 1912.—Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Jones (for himself, Mr. Clapp, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Kern, and 
Mr. Lea), from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted 
the following 

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 


[To accompany S. Res. 186.] 

In the primary election at which Mr. Stephenson was nominated 
for Senator pursuant to the Wisconsin law, the candidates expended 
the following sums: 


Neal Brown_ $1, 075. 87 

Francis E. McGovern__ 11, 063. 88 

William H. Hatton_ 26, 413. 00 

S. A. Cook_ 42,293.29 

Senator Stephenson_!_ 107, 793. 05 


In all, about $225,000 on the part of candidates for the Senate 
alone. 

Referring to these expenditures, the majority report says: 

The amount of money expended by Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hatton, 
and Mr. McGovern in the primary campaign was so extravagant and the ex¬ 
penditures made by and on behalf of these gentlemen were made with such 
reckless disregard of propriety as to justify the sharpest criticism. Such 
expenditures were in violation of the fundamental principles underlying our 
system of Government, which contemplated the selection of candidates by the 
electors and not the selection of electors by the candidate. 

We concur in this statement, and it justifies us in opposing the 
conclusion of the majority. How a seat in the Senate can be secured 
“in violation of the fundamental principles underlying our system 
of government,” with the evidence showing the use of such a largo 
sum of money, and not be tainted by corrupt methods and practices 
we are unable to comprehend. The question now squarely before 
the Senate is whether or not methods and practices “ in violation 
of the fundamental principles underlying our system of govern¬ 
ment ” shall be denounced by our words and approved by our votes. 

The majority report also says: 

Were a candidate for a State office in Wisconsin to conduct a campaign in 
the manner in which the campaign of Mr. Stephenson and of other men who 
sought election to the United States Senate were conducted, it would be very 
difficult to justify such conduct under the laws of the State. 














2 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


This statement we indorse. It warrants our opposition to the 
conclusion of the majority. If it would be difficult to justify a cam¬ 
paign like this by a candidate for a State office why is it not equally 
difficult to justify it on the part of Senator Stephenson? He was 
not compelled to go into the primary. He elected to do so, and he 
should be held to the same degree of accountability as any other can¬ 
didate in that primary. 

If he used methods—and the majority says he did—that it would 
be difficult to justify in behalf of a State candidate, then it is equally 
difficult for the Senate to justify such conduct on the part of a candi¬ 
date for a seat in this body and preserve its integrity and honor. 
In our judgment it can not do it. 

ADMITTED FACTS. 

The following may be taken as admitted facts in this case: Three 
men were selected as managers by Senator Stephenson; money was 
placed in their hands from time to time as called for to the amount 
of over $107,000; they were not asked how they expended it, nor 
for what purpose; no accounting was requested; they paid it out 
in various sums to different individuals in different wards, pre¬ 
cincts, and counties; large sums were paid to different individuals 
holding official positions, and to individuals recognized to be leaders, 
and to others of prominence in different organizations; no directions 
were given to these men how the money should be expended; no 
reports were required and no knowledge obtained as to how they 
spent the money or for what purpose; men were hired for the 
ostensible purpose of going over the country talking Stephenson and 
creating Stepnenson sentiment; men, whose occupations led them 
into different sections of the country, were paid large sums of money 
for talking for Stephenson on their travels; men were paid three, 
five, and ten dollars per day to be at the polls on election day, or 
to haul voters to the polls; large sums were paid leaders in different 
wards and precincts to look after their wards and precincts; hun¬ 
dreds of dollars were spent for treating to cigars, liquors, meals, 
etc., as much as $135 in one day by one man; money was paid to 
candidates for the legislature, at least three of whom were nomi¬ 
nated and elected; detailed expenditures were not kept; memoranda 
were destroyed; records and papers concerning the campaign were 
shifted from one place to another; mysterious methods and round¬ 
about ways w T ere employed; original records were destroyed; items 
and amounts were grouped in such a way as to give no knowledge 
to the public except the amount of each class of expenditures; a 
banker acted as treasurer; no account was opened as is usually done 
by depositors; remittances were received, private memoranda kept, 
cash disbursements of funds made, but no record was kept on the 
bank’s books, and when the committee of the general assembly 
started to investigate local counsel for Mr. Stephenson had such 
records and correspondence as had not already been destroyed moved 
out of the State, for the purpose of keeping them beyond the juris¬ 
diction of the general assembly. 

All this is admitted, and we feel that we have a right to assume 
from these admitted facts and actions that corrupt methods and prac¬ 
tices were used in connection with said primary election. To hold 

(T e w ~ 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


3 


otherwise is to establish a precedent that would authorize an expendi¬ 
ture of hundreds of thousands of dollars to debauch the electorate 
in order to secure a seat in this body. To do this is to notify the 
world that we are careless as to whether or not seats in this body 
are to be bought and sold as so much merchandise to the man with 
the largest purse. To do so is to say to the man of millions eager for 
place, power, and honor, “ Spend as much of your millions as you 
please to secure a seat here and no question will be made if you 
claim it was expended within the law.” As was said by Senator 
Hoar and Senator Frye, in regard to the facts before them invthe 
Payne case, “ No more fatal blow can be struck at the Senate or at 
the purity and permanence of the republican Government itself than 
the establishment of this precedent.” 

The expenditure of such a sum of money at a primary election on 
behalf of one candidate in itself shocks the judgment and conscience 
of honest men generally, and disbursed as disclosed by the record in 
this case is conclusive proof of corrupt methods and practices. 

THE PRIMARY. 

The power to inquire into the practices and methods employed in 
the primary election is questioned. The majority in this case find 
that we have this power, and with that conclusion we agree. In this 
we are fully sustained by principle and precedent, and by the terms 
of the resolution under which the committee acted, which authorized 
and directed the committee “ to investigate certain charges preferred 
by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator 
of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, and report to the 
Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator 
of the United States from the said State of Wisconsin there were used 
corrupt methods and practices.” The charges preferred by the Legis¬ 
lature of Wisconsin affected not only the election by the legislature 
itself, but also the primary election. 

It appears by the record that several candidates for the legislature 
announced during their candidacy that, if elected, they would vote 
for the candidate for Senator receiving the highest vote at the pri¬ 
mary. If the primary choice was secured by corrupt methods and 
practices, would not the vote in the legislature secured thereby be 
corrupt, however innocent the member casting ii:? Several members 
of the legislature announced when they voted for Stephenson that 
they did so solely because he was the primary choice. If the primary 
was carried by corrupt methods and practices, thfcse votes were cor¬ 
rupt, though "honestly cast, and if the Senate can not inquire into 
such corrupt methods and practices, then the power given to us to 
judge of elections of our Members is a mere shadow. That we have 
this power is in accord not only with reason and justice, but is sus¬ 
tained by precedent. 

The case of Mr. Caldwell, found at page 429, Senate Election 
Cases, is in point. In this case an arrangement was made by Mr. 
Caldwell with Thomas Carney under which Mr. Carney agreed not 
to be a candidate for United States Senator before the Legislature of 
Kansas and should give his influence and support for Mr. Caldwell. 
Mr. Caldwell was to pay him $15,000. Mr. Carney was not a candi¬ 
date before the legislature and did use his influence to secure the 


4 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


election of Mr. Caldwell. Was such an arrangement corrupt? The 
committee said: 

It was an attempt to buy the votes of the members of the legislature, not by 
bribing them directly, but through the manipulations of another. The purchase 
money was not to go to them, but to Mr. Carney, who was to sell and deliver 
them without their knowledge. That Mr. Caldwell did procure the votes of 
members of the legislature, friends of Mr. Carney, ignorant of the fact that 
Mr. Carney was making merchandise of his political character and influence 
and of their friendship for him, for which he was to receive a large sum of 
money, the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt. 

Buying off opposing candidates, and in that way securing the votes of all or 
the most of their friends, is in effect buying the office. It recognizes candidacy 
for office as a merchantable commodity—a thing having a money value—and is 
as destructive to the purity and freedom of elections as the direct bribery of 
members of the legislature. 

When candidates for the legislature announce that they will vote 
for the choice of the primary for Senator, then to buy or corrupt the 
primary is to buy the member of the legislature; and if it was corrupt 
to buy off a candidate for the Senate and thereby secure the votes of 
his friends it is also corrupt to buy the primary and thereby secure 
the votes of those who announce that they will be controlled by the 
primary; and if the Senate can go outside of the proceedings of the 
legislature and investigate corruption in preventing men from being 
candidates for the Senate before the legislature, then'it can certainly 
investigate methods and proceedings in the primary. 

In the Payne case (Senate Election Cases, p. Til) three of the 
committee of seven say: 

We, in our conclusion, made no distinction between the use of fraud, corrup¬ 
tion, or bribery in a caucus vote or in the legislative vote for a Senator. 
Although a caucus, or what proceeds in it, has no constitutional or legal rela¬ 
tion to the election of a Senator, yet, by the habit of political parties, the stage 
of determination as to who is to be elected Senator, and the influences, proper 
or improper, that produce that determination, is that which precedes and is con¬ 
cluded in the caucus. So far as the question of personal delinquency or 
turpitude is concerned, no moral distinction should be made between corrupt 
proceedings in caucus and those in the legislature. How far any such distinc¬ 
tion would need to be insisted upon in any case, on the question of unseating 
a Senator, where he himself was not affected with any personal misconduct or 
complicity with the misconduct of others, we have no occasion, in the immedi¬ 
ate case or attitude of the subject, to consider or suggest. 

Senators Hoar and Frye, in the same case, in their minority views 
at page 715, say: 

t 

If B, C, and D have promised to vote as A shall vote, if A be corrupted, four 
votes are gained by the process, although B, C, and D be innocent. In looking, 
therefore, to see whether an election by the legislature was procured or effected 
by bribery, it may be very important to discover whether that bribery procured 
the nomination of a caucus whose action a majority of the legislature were 
bound in honor to support. 


JOHN W. STONE. 

John W. Stone was State game warden and had many deputies 
acting under him. Their position gave them an influence they would 
not have as individuals, and their duties required them to travel 
over the State. It was desirable to have their active support. Sena¬ 
tor Stephenson personally _ directed that $2,500 be turned over to 
Stone. This was done without any specific directions as to its 
use, and the money was distributed over the State where and in the 
manner that it was thought would do the most good. While this 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 5 

action may not be a direct violation of the letter of any State law, 
in our judgment it was a corrupt practice. 

EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY. 

We submit the following extracts from the testimony as illustra¬ 
tive of the methods and practices pursued in the distribution of this 
large sum of money for campaign purposes: 

PRIMARY—STEPHENSON WOULD FIX NO LIMIT, BUT SAID GO ON AND CONDUCT THE 

CAMPAIGN, ETC. 

Mr. Edmonds. In my talk with Senator Stephenson I wanted, to learn from 
him the amount of money he expected to expend. He seemed to think that too 
much money was being expended. I endeavored to have him fix an amount so 
that we would not exceed it. This he declined to do, and I endeavored to show 
him the difficulty of conducting a campaign without knowing how much I might 
be allowed to expend; but I was not able to get him to state, and he said to go 
on and conduct the campaign—“ use your best ability in conducting it,” and 
left it in that way. 

SENATOR STEPHENSON. 

Senator Pomerene. Did they advise you from time to time as to how they 
were expending this money? 

Senator Stephenson. Not as a rule; no, sir. 

Senator Pomerene. Did you ask for any report from them from time to time 
as to how they were expending this money? 

Senator Stephenson. No, sir. I had confidence in Mr. Edmonds and Mr. 
Puelicher and my bankers, and I have yet. 

Senator Pomerene. Referring to this letter of August 4, it was made known 
to you that to carry out Mr. Edmonds’s plan he needed more money? 

Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Pomerene. Did you at that time take up with him the matter as to 
the amount which you felt disposed to put into tbe campaign? 

Senator Stephenson. I can not say as to that. We telephoned some. I think 
I was in the headquarters only twice, and not to exceed an hour altogether dur¬ 
ing the entire campaign. I was not in Milwaukee but about three times. 

Senator Pomerene. In other words, we are to understand, then, that you 
left the entire management of this campaign to your campaign managers, and 
about all you did was to furnish the sinews of war? 

Senator Stephenson. Yes. 

TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PAID TO STONE, GAME WARDEN. 

The Chairman. We will pass that. Now, we come to another item, “ Cash 
to J. W. Stone, $2,500.” Who was Mr. Stone? 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Stone was game warden of Wisconsin. 

The Chairman. Did you know him personally before the payment of this 
$2,500? 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I had met him. 

The Chairman. Or at the time? 

Mr. Edmonds. I had met him. 

The Chairman. You paid him the money, did you not, in cash? 

Mr. Edmonds. Through my instructions. 

The Chairman. Did you not pay it to him in cash yourself? 

Mr. Edmonds. No. 

The Chairman. Who did? 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket says he did. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sacket paid it in cash. Where did he get the cash? 
Did you give it to him? 

Mr. Edmonds. No ; I did not have the cash. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sacket had no cash in the campaign, did he? 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket could get the cashier’s check from the bank. 

The Chairman. He had to get it from you, or on your credit? 

Mr. Edmonds. Sure; I told them to give it to him. 


6 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


The Chairman. Then you did tell him to get it? 

Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. 

The Chairman. Let us see if we can get at a candid statement of the occasion 
of the payment of this $2,500 to the State game warden. You know all about 
it, do you not? 

Mr. Edmonds. About his getting the money. 

The Chairman. You know all the details of that game warden proposition, 
do you not? 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes. 

The Chairman. The matter has been investigated in such a way as to fix it 
in your mind, has it not? 

Mr. Edmonds. It was not necessary, because I remembered the details. 

The Chairman. Remembered it all? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; there were some things I did not remember, but some 
details I remember. 

The Chairman. I would hardly expect to receive a reply if you do not know 
in regard to Mr. Stone. 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. For what purpose was $2,500 paid to Mr. Stone? 

Mr. Edmonds. For the purpose of getting his assistance in helping to nomi¬ 
nate Senator Stephenson. 

The Chairman. What kind of assistance? 

Mr. Edmonds. Such kind as he could give, in his best judgment. 

STONE MONEY PAID UNDER AGREEMENT WITH STEPHENSON. 

Senator Sutherland. When was it you gave Mr. Stone the $2,500, before or 
after this conversation? 

Mr. Edmonds. After. 

Senator Sutherland. After? 

. Mr. Edmonds. That is, I think the same day, as I recall. 

Senator Sutherland. How did you fix the amount of $2,500? 

Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that either Senator Stephenson informed me 
or else Mr. Stone informed me that that was the amount to be paid him. 

Senator Sutherland. Which was it? 

Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall now. 

Senator Sutherland. Did you make the arrangement or did Mr. Stephenson 
make it? 

Mr. Edmonds. My present recollection is that Mr. Stephenson made the 
agreement with Mr. Stone; Mr. Stone had seen him. 

Senator Sutherland. For the $2,500? 

Mr. Edmonds. But as to just liow far that went, I am not positive now. I 
do not want to do Mr. Stephenson an injustice by saying that he made it if 
Mr. Stone reported that that was the amount agreed upon when we talked. 

Senator Sutherland. Then I understand you to say that you do not know' 
why it was $2,500 rather than some other sum? 

Mr. Edmonds. Except that that was the amount that Mr. Stone thought was 
advisable to put in his hands; that he could use to advantage or because of the 
information received from Senator Stephenson; which I am not sure. 

Senator Sutherland. Did you not exercise any judgment yourself as to what 
amount should be paid? 

Mr. Edmonds. In that particular case; no, sir. 

PRIMARY—MONEY TO MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE-GAME WARDEN STONE- 

STEPHENSON TOLD. 

The Chairman. What were the instructions, and what was the transaction? 

Mr. Edmonds. I think Senator Stephenson telephoned me or sent word 
through Mr. Stone to give him $2,500. 

The Chairman. To give you $2,500? 

Mr. Edmonds. To give him $2,500, 

The Chairman. To give Stone $2,500? 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. For what did you give it to him? 

Mr. Edmonds. I did not give it to him. 

The Chairman. You did not? 

Mr. Edmonds. No. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


7 


The Chairman. Where did Mr. Stone get the $2,500? 

Mr. Edmonds. I assume from the bank— a cashier’s check. 

The Chairman. Did you give him an order? 

Mr. Edmonds. That is my recollection, though I am not positive. 

The Chairman. That you gave him an order on the bank? 

Mr. Edmonds. I think so. That may have been one of the $5,000 items. I 
have not seen my check book for two years. 

GAME WARDEN STONE GOT $2,500 BY DIRECTION OF STEPHENSON ; WAS TO USE AT 

OWN ELECTION. 

The Chairman. Was it to he expended by you, or were you authorized to 
pay it out to others, to be expended by them? 

Mr. Stone. I was to use it at my own discretion. 

The Chairman. Were you at liberty, then, as you understood the transaction, 
to handle all that money yourself? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. According to your discretion? 

Mr. Stone. Yes. 

The Chairman. No limitations were placed upon you, whatever, as to the 
manner of expenditure, were they? 

Mr. Stone. No ; I think not. 

MANAGER EDMONDS’S DESCRIPTION OF “ ORGANIZATION ” METHODS. 

The Chairman. Now, what do you mean by “ organize ” when you use the 
term in connection with the payment of this money? 

Mr. Edmonds. I mean that the man employed by me to look after Dane 
County and get out the vote—the largest possible vote—for Senator Stephenson 
was given latitude, usually guided by his judgment alone, as to what was to be 
done (p. 77). 

The Chairman. Particularize the word “organize” and tell me what consti¬ 
tuted organization. 

Mr. Edmonds. My idea in a county that was thoroughly organized would be 
in the first place to get out the advertising that we sent to the county—have it 
fully distributed and posted, and after that was done he was to put in his full 
time going around the county, and he was paid for his services going around the 
county and interesting men of influence in the different localities to interest 
their friends so as to get out a full vote for Senator Stephenson election day. 
In some instances still further organizing, if in their judgment that was wise, 
by getting out the vote, by hiring teams, etc., for getting men to the polls 
(P. 78). 

PURPOSE FOR WHICH MONEY WAS PAID. 

The Chairman. The second charge is as follows: 

“ That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to said primary, pay to said Edmonds, 
above mentioned, sums with the design that said Edmonds should pay to other 
electors of this State, out of said sums above mentioned* and other sums of 
money received by said Edmonds from said Isaac Stephenson, prior to said 
primary, sums ranging from $5 per day to $1,000, in bulk, as a consideration 
for some act to be dene in relation to said primary by said electors for said 
Isaac Stephenson as such candidate, in violation of said section.” 

Is that statement true? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Wherein is it not true? 

Mr. Edmonds. It is a pretty long statement. One of the things that appeals 
to me as not being true is that neither of those sums is in violation of the law. 

The Chairman. Then we will waive that last statement, “ in violation of said 
section.” Did he give you those sums, or any of them, to pay to other electors 
of the State? 

Mr. Edmonds. To other electors of the State? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I should say that he understood that in his payment of 
the money. 

The Chairman. Then the statement of facts, aside from the final clause, “ iu 
violation of said section,” is substantially correct, is it? 


8 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


Mr. Edmonds. There are a: good many items in there enumerated, but I should 
say it is substantially correct. 

Senator Sutherland. You have had charge of large expenditures of money, 
have you, in a business way? 

Mr. Edmonds. Quite large; yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. You have employed many agents whose duty it was to 
expend money? 

Mr. Edmonds. In some instances; yes, sir. Usually, however, in the manage¬ 
ment of a business, the work is done from the office, and the management of 
such business as I conducted was done by me, in the expenditure of money. 

Senator Sutherland. Is it in accordance with your business training and 
experience and habits to hand over to your agent a large sum of money, $500 
or $1,000, and have him expend it without keeping an account of what he ex¬ 
pends it for, or without having him render an account to you of the expen¬ 
ditures ? 

Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. 

Senator Sutherland. That is not in accordance with business methods, at 
any rate? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. Was there any reason why you could not request these 
various political agents to keep an account of their expenditures? 

Mr. Edmonds. The only reason I could give is that I have never heard of it 

being done. Custom, I should say, governed that. 

# 

NO memoranda as to money paid. 

Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Who should know, under the system that obtained in the 
headquarters? 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket should know. 

The Chairman. Did you make any memoranda when you gave instructions 
for the payment of money to these various people, or any of them, as to the 
services they were to perform in consideration of receiving this money? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; no written statement; no, sir. 

The Chairman. You say you did not? 

' Mr. Edmonds. No written statement; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you make any memoranda at any time in regard to the 
purposes for which the money you ordered paid was to be used? 

Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any. 

The Chairman. Endeavor to recall it now, Mr. Edmonds. 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I will. 

The Chairman. Can you recall any instance in which you made a memoran¬ 
dum as to the purpose for which the money was paid, either by you or under 
your instructions, during this campaign? 

Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall any instance; no, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no books of account in which such items will 
appear ? 

Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely not. 

The Chairman. You made no record either in a book or otherwise as to the 
purpose for which you paid or directed that money to be paid during the 
campaign? 

Mr. Edmonds. To the very best of my recollection, none. 

The Chairman. Why did you not? 

Mr. Edmonds. I did not feel it was necessary. 

The Chairman. Were you acquainted with the provisions of the statutes of 
the State of Wisconsin with reference to the filing of an expense account by 
those who were candidates for nomination or election? 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think so; reasonably well. 

The Chairman. Are we to understand that with that knowledge you did not 
make any attempt to lay the foundation for compliance with that law in the 
expenditure or payment of the large sums of money that you disbursed during 
the campaign? 

Mr. Edmonds. I did not, because it was done by another person in the office. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket. 

The Chairman. Suppose it transpired that it was not done by Mr. Sacket, 
then did Mr. Sacket disobey any instructions which you had given? 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 9 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; Mr. Sacket had his instructions from others before I 
came and took charge. 

The Chairman. You were the manager of the campaign, were you not? That 
was the term used as to yourself? 

Mr. Edmonds. That is the term that has been given me; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It was the designation at that time, was it not? 

Mr. Edmonds. I think so. 

The Chairman. How did you regard yourself in that respect? 

Mr. Edmonds. I think I regarded myself as manager of the campaign. 

The Chairman. And so regarding yourself, you made no attempt to lay the 
foundation for making a statement that would comply with the law in the 
event it became necessary to file an expense account? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Owing to the conditions that existed when I went 
there, I. felt that that was being done and so continued during my service. 

$100 SENT TO A NEWSPAPER MAN AT WAUSAU. 

The Chairman. I will so mark it. The next item is $300 to J. L. Sturtevandt. 
That is said to be for “ advertising.” What advertising was that? 

Mr. Edmonds. He is running a daily and weekly newspaper, I believe, at 
Wausau. 

The Chairman. Who made that contract? 

Mr. Edmonds. I believe I sent him the money. 

The Chairman. Have you a bill and receipt for it? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Any acknowledgment of it? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What advertising was that for? 

Mr. Edmonds. I do not know why the word “ advertising ” is in there ex¬ 
cept that that is Mr. Sacket’s method of designating certain of these matters 
to keep them in a certain account. 

The Chairman. But you know about the payment of the money? 

. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I paid the money. 

The Chairman. You inquired what it was for when you authorized it, did 
you not ? 

Mr. Edmonds. No. I had known Mr. Sturtevandt for some little time, and, be¬ 
lieving that he could be of assistance to us in Wausau—I knew that he was a 
friend of Senator Stephenson—I sent him a hundred dollars to use as he saw 
fit in promoting the interests of the Senator. 

The Chairman. That was what might be termed a general contribution to 
the newspaper, was it; for its friendship? 

Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps it might be called that. 

The Chairman. There was no specific advertisement—no space charged for— 
was there? 

Mr. Edmonds. In this particular instance, I do not know. 

The Chairman. No bill was rendered for specific services as “ advertising ”? 

Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall, in this instance. I sent him the money, asking 
him to use it in the interest of Senator Stephenson. 

The Chairman. You sent him the money for the purpose of retaining a 
friendly attitude toward Senator Stephenson, did you not? 

Mr. Edmonds. I did not need to do that, because he was very friendly; his 
paper was for him and had been all the time. 

The Chairman. Then it was a gratuity. You already had the services, and in 
acknowledgment of friendship you sent him a hundred dollars; does that ex¬ 
press it? • 

Mr. Edmonds. No ; I hardly think that expresses it. 

The Chairman. ^Tien what was the hundred dollars for? 

Mr. Edmonds. I thought that with the hundred dollars he would be more 
active in his support of Senator Stephenson. 

The Chairman. Then it was for additional friendship to that already existing, 

was it? 

Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps that statement would be true. 

The Chairman. It was to cement the existing friendship? 

Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly; it was to help Senator Stephenson. 

The Chairman. Was it in order that he might not probably be influenced to 
change his attitude of friendship? 

Mr. Edmonds. No ; that was not at all necessary with him. 


10 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


The Chairman. Very well. You sent just that class of contributions to a 
number of papers, I suppose, did you not? 

Mr. Edmonds. I think there were a number of instances; yes, sir. 

WISE MANAGERS DID NOT KNOW, AND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT, WHETHER THIS 

MONEY WAS SPENT HONESTLY OR NOT. 

The Chairman. And that you have made no effort to ascertain whether or not 
the expenditures of this money were wrongful? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In any case? 

Mr. Edmonds. I have not. 

THE EXTENT AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTION. 

The Chairman. You had 70 men, I understand, in your organization indus¬ 
triously engaged in distributing money among the common people throughout 
the campaign? 

Mr. Edmonds. I should say there were probably that many. 

MANAGER SACKET’S DESCRIPTION OF “ ORGANIZATION METHODS.” (P. 175.) 

The Chairman. I notice that all of these items for organizing—and the 
greater part of them are for organizing—are after the time when you had filed 
the petitions with the signatures on them. 

Mr. Sacket. My idea of organizing, as I used it iu this statement, might 
include circulating of petitions, or any other work to perfect that organization 
which we hoped to use for the election of Senator Stephenson. 

The Chairman. Would it include the distribution and payment of money to 
men who were to work at the polls? 

Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Would it include the payment of money to men who were to 
induce other men to vote for Senator Stephenson, without any limitation being 
placed upon the manner of inducement? 

Mr. Sacket. It would include money expended that way; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It might include money expended in purchasing votes, 
might it? 

Mr. Sacket. It might. 

The Chairman. Did it? 

Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Can you say it did not? 

Mr. Sacket. No, sir; not to my knowledge. 

method by which sacket spent money. 

(1G7) Mr. Sacket. I do not know. 

The Chairman. What services did he perform? 

Mr. Sacket. I do not know. 

Mr. Littlefield. Was he one of the men you made an arrangement with? 

Mr. Sacket. He was not. 

The Chairman. Did you pay that on the order of Mr. Edmonds? 

Mr. Sacket. I did. 

The Chairman. Did you pay money on the order of any person other than 
Mr. Edmonds? 

Mr. Sacket. Not to my recollection. 

The Chairman. When Mr. Edmonds gave you an order, such as is indicated 
by that payment, did he give it to you in writing? 

Mr. Sacket. Not necessarily 

The Chairman. How did he give it to you? 

Mr. Sacket. He told me that he wanted a check for $300 for Mr. R. E. Orton. 

The Chairman. Was it a verbal communication? 

Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you would get the check? 

Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And would you make a memorandum? 

Mr. Sacket. I would. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


11 


The Chairman. Did you inquire of Edmonds what the money was to be 
used for? 

Mr. Sacket. Not in all cases. 

The Chairman. Did you in this case? 

Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. 

The Chairman. You have no recollection about it? 

Mr. Sacket. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether it was to be used for purchasing 
votes or for what purposes? 

Mr. Sacket. I had no knowledge of my own whatever. 

The Chairman. Did you not feel it incumbent upon you to know for what the 
money that yon paid out was to be used? 

Mr. Sacket. The money that I paid out on Mr. Edmonds’s order; no. 

The Chairman. You think you would be relieved of responsibility if the 
money was to be paid out for an unlawful purpose merely because Ml*. Edmonds 
told you to pay it? 

Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You think you would be relieved? 

Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You would not undertake to assert that if an associate were 
to ask you to violate the law you would be justified in doing it? 

Mr. Sacket. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Then how do you account for your answer that if you be¬ 
lieved if Mr. Edmonds told you to pay this money out for an unlawful purpose 
that Mr. Edmonds and not you would be responsible? 

Mr. Sacket. I felt that when Mr. Edmonds asked for money I was under 
obligations to give it to him. I was Mr. Stephenson’s manager. 

destruction of memoranda. 

Manager Sacket, in testifying as to the payment of an item of $400, stated 
that he was unable to remember anything about it. He then testified as fol¬ 
lows (p. 164) : 

The Chairman. That emphasizes the misfortune of the destruction of your 
memoranda, does it not? Now, you say, in the absence of that memorandum, 
you can not remember anything about the $400. It may have been used to pur¬ 
chase votes in violation of law, may it not? 

Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge one way or the other. 

The Chairman. So that a payment of this money passing through your hands 
as the representative of the candidate may have been used, so far as you can 
state, for an illegal purpose? 

Mr. Sacket. I do not know. 

perrin’s expenditures. 

The Chairman. Who is C. It. Fridley? 

Mr. Perrin. He is an attorney at Superior. 

The Chairman. Is he an old resident? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is he an old man or a young man? 

Mr. Perrin. He is a man of 42 or 43 years of age. 

The Chairman. Did he support Senator Stephenson for nomination at the 
primaries and before the primaries? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

The Chairman. Was he in public life in any capacity? 

Mr. Perrin. No. 

The Chairman. He was what you call a political worker, was he? 

Mr. Perrin. No. He was a practicing lawyer. 

The Chairman. He was actively engaged in the practice of law? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You never asked him for any accounting as to the expense he 

had incurred? 

Mr. Perrin. I did not. 

The Chairman. What is Mr. Fridley’s business, you say? 

Mr. Perrin. He is an attorney. . TT _ « 

The Chairman. The next item is $10 to H. L. Dresser. Who is H. L. Dresser? 


12 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


Mr. Perrin. Mr. Dresser had nothing to do with the campaign, and does not 
live in the State. I was in Duluth and somebody made application to me for 
money, and I had to go to him and borrow it, and gave him my check to reim¬ 
burse him. It was money expended in the campaign. 

The Chairman. He lived in Duluth? 

Mr. Perrin. He lived in Duluth when this application was made to me. 

The Chairman. You drew this money for your own expenditure, or to be 
paid out by you? 

Mr. Perrin. I drew that money to be paid to some one in the Stephenson 
campaign. 

The Chairman. Can you say to whom you paid it? 

Mr. Perrin. I can not. 

The Chairman. We go to the next item of $50 cash. Can you account for 
any part of it? 

Mr. Perrin. I have no recollection of it. 

The Chairman. The last item I inquired about, of $10 to Dresser, was on the 
18th of August. 

Mr. Perrin. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And another item the same day, the 18th, is $50 cash. You 
say you can not account for that? 

Mr. Perrin. No. 

The Chairman. At that time you had received the $3,000. You received it 
on the 15th. So you had all of this $5,000 then available? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And on the 19th you drew a check to W. W. Savage for $25, 
and he indorsed it. What was that for? 

Mr. Perrin. I am not sure about that. I sent him out two or three times, I 
do not remember when, to get information to enable us to carry on this work. 

The Chairman. He was your clerk? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

The Chairman. On the 21st you paid out $200 cash. Can you account for 
any part of that? 

Mr. Perrin. I have no recollection of it. 

The Chairman. On the same day you paid out $100 cash. Can you account 
for any part of that? 

Mr. Perrin. I have no distinct recollection. 

The Chairman. Again on the same day, $40 cash. Can you account for that 
or any part of it? 

Mr. Perrin. I do not recollect that. 

The Chairman. Was it money expended in the city of Superior? 

Mr. Perrin. This money was expended in four counties—Douglas, Bayfield, 
Sawyer, and Washburn. 

The Chairman. Are they the northern counties in the State? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

The Chairman. The most northern? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

The Chairman. Tell us the conversation—what he said to you and what you 
said to him that resulted in the handing over of that check. 

Mr. Perrin. I can not remember the details. 

The Chairman. Give us the substance. 

Mr. Perrin. The substance of it was that I went to him and asked him if he 
would put in some time in the Stephenson campaign. He said he would do 
what he could. I asked him how nnich money he thought he would need at 
that time, and he said that he ought to have $250. 

The Chairman. Did you tell him that you were disbursing Stephenson money 
at that time? You told him you had received this thousand dollars, did you? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

The Chairman. And he told you he could be of some use to Senator Stephen¬ 
son, did he? 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

The Chairman. How did he tell you he could be of use to Senator Stephenson? 

Mr. Perrin. I guess I knew as much about that as he did. I do not know 
that he expressed himself in specific terms as to what he could do or would do. 

The Chairman. What did he do for Senator Stephenson's campaign? 

Mr. Perrin. I do not know’. 

The Chairman. You say you knew' what he could do? 

Mr. Perrin. I knew w T hat he could do; certainly. 

The Chairman. Was that to be taken as a criterion of what he did do? 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


13 


Mr. Perrin. It was by me. 

The Chairman. What did'he do? 

Mr. Perrin. Taking that as a criterion, he could, and I believe he did, get 
men interested for Senator Stephenson that neither Senator Stephenson. Mr. 
Edmonds, nor I could otherwise get. 

The Chairman. Get men that you could not get? 

Mr. Perrin\ Yes. 

The Chairman. ITow would he get them interested? What would he do‘ } 

Mr. Perrin. I think he would mostly talk. 

The Chairman. What would he say to them? 

Mr. Perrin. I am sure I do not know. 

The Chairman. What would be the nature of the conversation? 

Mr. Perrin. I would not undertake to say. 

The Chairman. How do you know it is not just exactly the conversation you 
or Mr. Edmonds would have had with these people? 

Mr. Perrin. Because 1 know that I could not talk to some of those people the 
way Mr. Shields could. 

The Chairman. If you do not know what he Said to them, how do you know 
that? 

Mr. Perrin. There are things, you know, that we know without being able 
to explain or express after long years of acquaintance with a man that no man 
living can sit on the witness stand and detail. 

The Chairman. Do you think you are worth the $3,000 that Mr. Stephenson 
gave you? 

Mr. Perrin. Oh, I know I am worth that. 

The Chairman. It takes a pretty good political talker to get that amount of 
money. 

Mr. Perrin. I did not have to talk any to get it. 

The Chairman. How much of this money indicated by the cash items or the 
checks remained in your hands? 

Mr. Perrin. Not a cent. 

The Chairman. And yet you can not account for a cent of it that you paid 
out? 

Mr. Perrin. I can not in detail; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Not a single item? 

Mr. Perrin. Not one. 

The Chairman. That was rather a spectacular campaign in some respects, 
was it not, with money flowing out freely in those amounts? 

Mr. Perrin. To speak in the vernacular, I guess we got them “ going some.’" 

Senator Sutherand. In handing over sums of money to people that you em¬ 
ployed in Senator Stephenson’s interest, did you give any of them any instruc¬ 
tion whatever as to what they should do? 

Mr. Perrin. If I thought it was necessary when I gave the man money to 
tell him what to do, I have no doubt I did. 

Senator Sutherland. Did you? 

Mr. Perrin. I do not remember. 

Senator Sutherland. You do not recall having given anybody any instruc¬ 
tions? 

Mr. Perrin. No; I do not recall it. I know there were some instances where 
I said to some man, or some men, that we wmild look to him or them to provide 
workers at the polls, for instance, or teams to get voters out. But that was 
all in the most general way. 

Senator Sutherland. You gave them no specific instructions that you recall 
as to what they should do? 

Mr. Perrin. I do not recall now; no. I do not recall now that I did. 

The Chairman. On August 5, $200 cash. For what was that cash expended, 
and by whom? 

Mr. Perrin. I have no recollection. 

The Chairman. August 6, $25 cash. What do you say as to that? 

Mr. Perrin. I have no recollection. 

The Chairman. August 6, $200. What have you to say as to that item? 

Mr. Perrin. I do not remember it. 

The Chairman. When you say you do not remember, you mean- 

Mr. Perrin. I have no recollection. 

The Chairman. That you have no information to give in regard to it, based 
upon your recollection? 



14 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


Mr. Perrin. None whatever. 

The Chairman. On August 7, $100 cash. Have you any recollection as to the 
purpose for which that was expended? 

Mr. Perrin. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And on August 7, again, $75; and on August 7, again, $50; 
that is $225 on August 7. Have you any knowledge as to what that was used 
for? 

Mr. Perrin. Those items are all “ cash ” ? 

The Chairman. Yes; they are all cash. 

Mr. Perrin. No; I have no recollection. 

The Chairman. On the 8th we have cash items of $50, $50, $50, $50, and $50— 
$250; do you know the purpose for which that money, or any part of it, was 
expended ? 

Mr. Perrin. Those are cash? 

The Chairman. Yes; cash items. 

Mr. Perrin. No; I have no recollection. 

Senator Pomerene. You have said in answer to Senator Sutherland—I want 
to quote you correctly, and if I do not you will correct me—that you probably, 
paid money to 100 different persons, though you were not definite as to your 
statement. 

Mr. Perrin. No ; I can not be. 

Senator Pomerene. I understand that. You also said to him again in your 
examination that you knew personally very many of the men that you em¬ 
ployed. 

Mr. Perrin. Yes. 

Senator Pomerene. Do you mean to tell the committee that you do not now 
remember any of the men to whom you paid this money, outside of the few 
names that you gave to Senator Heyburn? 

Mr. Perrin. That is just exactly what I mean to say. 

Senator Pomerene. Not one of them? 

Mr. Perkin. Not one of them. 

MR. TERRIN’S METHODS OF DISTRIBUTING $5,000. 

(6S9) Mr. Perrin. I planned that we would take the first $1,000 and get 
hold of as many of the men who were accustomed to doing political work in 
that territory as we could get hold of with that money, laying the foundation 
for further and more extensive electioneering if the money was forthcoming. 
* * * At that time, I think, I knew I would get another $1,000. 

“ The Chairman. With this class of expenditure the motive does cut some 
figure. You were representing a candidate for office, under the laws of a 
State, and you were not spending your money, but his. Did it not occur to you 
that he would be responsible for the manner of your expenditure, and that 
incidentally to that you would have some responsibility?” 

Mr. Perrin. No. 

The Chairman. It did not? 

Mr. Perrin. No. 

The Chairman. You did not feel that you were under any responsibility to 
any person or any law for the manner of the expenditure of this money? 

Mr. Perrin. I do uot think I said that. 

The Chairman. I asked you. It is a question I am asking you. 

Mr. Perrin. Just read the question, please. 

The reporter read as follows: 

“The Chairman. You did not feel that you were under any responsibility to 
any person or any law for the manner of the expenditure of this money?” 

Mr. Perrin. I felt that I was responsible to Senator Stephenson for the ex¬ 
penditure of the money that he put in my hands. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the manner of the expenditure? 

Mr. Perrin. No; I do not think so, entirely. I think I was selected to exer¬ 
cise an independent judgment upon the manner in which his candidacy should 
be furthered in that particular. 

The Chairman. And leave the responsibility upon Senator Stephenson? 

Mr. Perrin. May I inquire—responsibility for what? 

The Chairman. The manner in which you expended it; were you going to let 
him take chances on that? 

Mr. Perrin. I do not think the Senator was taking any chances on that. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


15 


The Chairman. To return to Mr. Shields: You have not been able to account 
for any item of expenditure by Mr. Shields; so that we shall have to rely 
upon Mr. Shields, shall we, for that information? 

Mr. Perrin. I presume he can give you some idea as to what he did with 
that money. I'should like to say, if I may, that of these cash items I think 
Mr. Fridley had more than appears to have been given him upon checks drawn 
to his order. 

Mr. Perrin. This statute has never received in practical operation, by anybody 
that I know of in the State of Wisconsin, the construction which has been sug¬ 
gested here. It is the common, ordinary thing throughout northern Wisconsin 
to take a man to the theater or take him to lunch, not necessarily to corrupt his 
mind, but to enlighten him. You do these things to get a man’s mind in a re¬ 
ceptive mood. You can not go after him. Senator, you know, with an ax and 
beat an idea into him. It has got to be worked out along practical lines. It 
seems foolish for me to sit here and talk to you gentlemen about this thing, 
because you know so much more about it than I do. 

The Chairman. Our examination here is not so much for our entertainment 
as to make a record. 

Mr. Perrin. I beg your pardon. I apologize. 

The Chairman. You need make no apology. This is to be taken as a test of 
your meaning of “electioneering” then, is it? 

Mr. Perrin. 1 think that is a fair test of the meaning of ninety-nine men out 
of a hundred who conduct politics. 

The Chairman. Of “electioneering”? 

Mr. Perrin. “ Electioneering.” 

The Chairman. You think that comes within the definition of “ electioneer¬ 
ing ” ? 

Mr. Perrin. I certainly do. 

The Chairman. And when you speak of having expended money in election¬ 
eering, either by you or by those whom you employed, you include that kind of 
proceeding under the head “electioneering”? 

Mr. Perrin. It may be included. 

Senator Sutherland. You think it is as legitimate to reach a man through 
his appetite as it is through his intellect? 

KNOWINGLY PAID MONEY TO SHAUERS. 

The Chairman. You said, or I understood you to say, that there was only one 
case in which you knowingly paid money to a man who was a candidate for the 
legislature; what case was that? 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Shauers, of Oconto County. 

Mr. Littlefield. Was he elected? 

Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 

Mr. Littlefield. What w r as his name? 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Shauers. 

The Chairman. For what purpose did you play him money? 

Mr. Edmonds. He was a railroad man, and for the purpose of organizing he 
went in different parts of the State to see railroad men. 

The Chairman. Was he in employment then or out of employment? 

Mr. Edmonds. Out of employment. 

The Chairman. Then he went from his home to different parts of the State, 
outside of the legislative district where he was a candidate? 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes. It was distinctly understood that he was to spend no 
time, no money, in that district. 

The Chairman. Well, but did he? 

Mr. Edmonds. He did not, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Littlefield. That is, in his own district? 

Mr. Edmonds. In his own district. 

Mr. Littlefield. So that nothing that was expended by him had any relation 
to the campaign pending in his district? 

Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Littlefield. Either directly or indirectly? 

The Chairman. How much did you pay Shauers? 

Mr. Edmonds. I don’t recall. I should think it might range from $50 to $100 
or $125. I don’t think more than that. I paid him, I think, two or three 
different times $25. 


16 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


THOMAS REYNOLDS. 

The Chairman. Did you receive any more than $180 from Senator Stephen¬ 
son, or from anyone in his behalf? 

Mr. Reynolds. I received $100 from Senator Stephenson’s manager. 

The Chairman. Is that the $100 that you have referred to? Did you re¬ 
ceive $280 altogether from Senator Stephenson or his manager? 

Mr. Reynolds. I did not consider it from Senator Stephenson, although 
Senator Stephenson told me afterwards that he told them to send it to me— 
I supposed for my services; I do not know for what. 

The Chairman. Did you receive $280 altogether from Senator Stephenson? 

Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You received $S0 from Senator Stephenson personally, did 
you not? 

Mr. Reynolds. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then you received $100 from Senator Stephenson personally? 

Mr. Reynolds. No, sir; not personally. 

The Chairman. From whom did you receive it? 

Mr. Reynolds. I received it through the mail. 

The Chairman. Did you receive the second $100 through the mail? 

Mr. Reynolds. The second $100; yes, sir; that is the only $100 I received 
through the mail, the second $100—no; the first $100. The first $100. 

The Chairman. Did you receive another $100 after that? 

Mr. Reynolds. I received $100 by check from his manager. 

The Chairman. Did you receive $100 by check from Senator Stephenson? 

Mr. Reynolds. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you receive more than one sum of $100 from the 
manager? 

Mr. Reynolds. That is all I received from the manager—$100; a $100 check. 

The Chairman. Tell us how you received the $280. 

Mr. Reynolds. I received $S0 from Senator Stephenson and $100 afterwards 
from him. 

The Chairman. From Senator Stephenson? 

Mr. Reynolds. Yes. 

The Chairman. Personally? 

Mr. Reynolds. Not personally; no. 

The Chairman. How did you receive it? 

Mr. Reynolds. Through the mail. 

* * * * * * 

The Chairman. To whom did you pay the largest sum of money? 

Mr. Riordan. In all? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Riordan. During the campaign? 

The Chairman. Yes; out of this fund. 

Mr. Riordan. For any purpose? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Riordan. $250 to E. A. Everett, of Eagle River. 

The Chairman. For what did you pay him that sum? 

Mr. Riordan. For traveling through the counties of Vilas, Iron, and Oneida 
and ascertaining, as far as he was able, the sentiment of the people as he went 
along; that is, those who were for and against each of the several candidates. 

The Chairman. Did he report to you a memorandum of people, showing the 
result of that work? 

Mr. Riordan. He made two such trips through the county. After the first 
one he came back and made a report to me, and the second time he came back 
and made a similar report. 

The Chairman. Tell us who he was. 

Mr. Riordan. E. A. Everett is the proprietor of the Everett resort. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Riordan. That consists of a large hotel dining room and about 40 cot¬ 
tages on the Eagle chain of lakes, at Eagle River. 

The Chairman. It is a summer resort? 

Mr. Riordan. It is a summer resort. Prior to that time he was a member 
of the Wisconsin Assembly. 

The Chairman. But at the time you made this arrangement with him he 
was not a public officer? 

Mr. Riordan. He was a candidate for public office. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


17 


The Chairman. What office? 

Mr. Riordan. The office of member of the assembly. 

The Chairman. At the time you paid him this money? 

Mr. Riordan. I did not pay him the money, I see by my testimony, until the 
31st of August. 

Senator Pomerene. Is that George E. Everett? 

Mr. Riordan. E. A. Everett. 

The Chairman. The testimony would indicate that you paid it to him before 
the primary election. 

Mr. Riordan. I think a day or two before the primary election. 

Mr. Littlefield. He was a candidate for the assembly? 

Mr. Riordan. Yes. 

The Chairman. Was he elected? 

Mr. Riordan. No, sir. 

The Chairman. When you paid it to him, did you know that he was a candi¬ 
date for the assembly? 

Mr. Riordan. I think I did, certainly. I surely talked with him about it. 
The Chairman. Was he announcing for whom he would vote in the legisla¬ 
ture if he were elected? 

Mr. Riordan. Yes; he was to vote for the candidate who received the pri¬ 
mary nomination. 

The Chairman. Without regard to who it was? 

Mr. Riordan. Yes; and I would like to add there that the man who was run¬ 
ning against him made the same promise. 

Mr. Littlefield. What was his name? 

Mr. Riordan. D. B. Steveus. 

The Chairman. They promised to abide the result of the primary? 

Mr. Riordan. Yes. The campaign was made with that understanding. 

The Chairman. For whom did they assert their influence during the primary, 
the time preceding the election? 

Mr. Riordan. I think for themselves, individually. 

The Chairman. Were they announcing their support of any particular candi¬ 
date, or doing anything in the interest of any particular candidate? 

Mr. Riordan. No: I do not think they were. 

Bancroft’s methods. - 

The Chairman (reading) : 

“The result of our conference was that I, being pretty well acquainted with 
the county, and knowing who the political workers were in the county, con¬ 
sented to disburse this amount of money for Mr. Stephenson.” 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Bancroft. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Give us the names of the people and the amounts you gave 

them. 

Mr. Bancroft. George Mehaffy I paid $100. 

The Chairman. What was he to do for that $100? 

Mr. Bancroft. T gave him no instructions whatever. 

Senator Pomerene. What is his address? 

Mr. Bancroft. Richland Center. . I . 

The Chairman. What did he do with the money? 

Mr. Bancroft. I could not tell you. 

The Chairman. Did you ask him to render you an account of the manner 
of its expenditure? 

Mr. Bancroft. I did not. 

The Chairman. Did he ever tell you how he expended the money? 

Mr. Bancroft. He did not. 

The Chairman. Then you never knew? 

Mr. Bancroft. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Did you ever know? 

Mr. Bancroft. I never knew. 

MONEY PAID TO MULDER, CANDIDATE FOR THE LEGISLATURE. 

w c ^ 

Mr. Littlefield. Then you said, “and he got some of this money”; so I got 
Hie impression that you referred to McConnell. 

F nator Pomerene. You understood that I was referring to Mulder? 

S. Report 349, 62-2, pt 2-2 


18 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 



Mr. Gordon. Yes. 

Mr. Littlefield. That is all right, then. 

Senator Pomerene. Yes; that is all right, so there will be no misunder¬ 
standing. Was it as much as $50? 

Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you how much it was. 

Senator Pomerene. You can certainly give us some idea as to whether it was 
a matter of $5 or $10 or $50 or $100. 

Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you definitely how much it was. 

Senator Pomerene. I know; but I am not asking you for that. I am asking 
you for your best judgment about it. 

Mr. Gordon. It was probably, I should guess, from $25 to $50. 

Senator Pomerene. What did you say to him with reference to his campaign 
and what use was to be made of this money? 

Mr. Gordon. He was one of the original Stephenson men in the county, and I 
asked him to do what he could in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. 

Senator Pomerene. What else was said? 

Mr. Gordon. That is all I can recollect. I do not recollect all that was said 
That is what I naturally would say. 

Senator Pomerene. Since your attention has been directed to this matter, 
do you not recall that Mulder was a candidate for the general assembly? 

Mr. Gordon. I say he was a candidate, but I can not recollect whether he was 
when I gave him the money or whether he subsequently became a candidate. 

Senator Pomerene. I misunderstood you, then. 

Mr. Gordon. He was a candidate; yes. 

Senator Pomerene. We understand each other now—that he was in fact a 
candidate? 

Mr. Gordon. He was a candidate; yes, sir. 

Senator Pomerene. But you meant to say that you do not remember whether 
at the time you gave him the money he was then an announced candidate 
or not? 

Mr. Gordon. That is the idea. 

wheeler’s methods of distribution. 

William G. Wheeler distributed $600 and aided in the “ organiza¬ 
tion.” Mr. C. B. Salmons was one of his lieutenants. Mr. Salmons 
reported the success of his operations in the following letter to his 
chief (p. 897) : 

Beloit, Wis., September 1 . 

My Dear Wheeler: I inclose bills in blank which are correct. All the men 
and rigs were in the exclusive use of Stephenson. We did not mix any other 
candidates. We also had about as many more that were Stephenson and one 
or two other candidates. At this writing. 4 p. in., I predict 1.700 to 1,800 votes, 
and that Stephenson will get 05 per cent. 

Very truly, C. B. Salmon. 

We should pay these men in the morning. 

(Our italics.) 

MR. dart's METHODS IN DISTRIBUTING MONEY. 

Dart, was one of the deputy game wardens, and received $400 for 
“ organization purposes.” 

The chairman read to the witness an extract from his testimony 
given before the legislative committee as follows: 

“ Q. What did you do with it?—A. Spent it. 

“Q. How?—A. Every old way. 

“ Q. What is that?—A. Every way. 

“ Q. Tell us some way that you spent it.—A. Oh, I spent quite a lot of it 
in saloons.” 

The Chairman. Is that true? 

Mr. Dart. Well, I should not go past any of them if there was anybody there 
I wanted to see. 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 


19 


The Chairman (reading from previous testimony) : 

“ Q. Did you make any payments to individuals?—A. Oh, yes; I gave them 
quite a little bunch of money. 

“ Q. Who were the persons to whom you gave ‘ quite a little bunch of 
money’?—A. Oh, I don’t know; I could not mention half or a quarter of them.” 

He, however, on pages 977 to 982, gives an interesting account of 
the expenditures that he remembers. 

The testimony of Mr. Wellensgard, on pages 852, 855, and 856; 
that of Mr. French, at page 876; and that of George Beyer, at page 
881, furnish fair illustrations of the methods employed by local 
workers. 

LIQUOR EXPENDITURES. 

Senator Pomerene. Or, if he got a drink of whisky at the bar and drank it 
there, that would not be prohibited; but if he got a half a pint and put it in his 
pocket and took it away for a swig after a while, that would be illegal? 

Mr. Sacket. I think I should have to revert to the custom again and say that 
the half pint was lawful. 

Senator Sutherland. Is it the custom in Wisconsin to buy the voters bottles 
of whisky and give to them? 

Mr. Sacket. And kegs of beer; yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. And kegs of beer? 

Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Littlefield. Let me get that question. 

Senator Pomerene. Being from Maine, you do not know anything about that. 

Mr. Littlefield. That is why I was quite anxious to get the actual practical 
situation. I trust we are adding to the sum of human knowledge and at the 
same time increasing my own information. Of course, I fully realize my 
infirmity. 

Senator Sutherland. Now, Mr. Sacket, do you seriously mean that that is 
the custom in Wisconsin- 

Mr. Sacket. The custom, as I understand it; yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. To purchase bottles of whisky and kegs of beer for 
voters? 

Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 

******* 

The Chairman (reading) : 

“ Q. You kept no track of it. How could you present a bill to Mr. Way land? 
Was that just an estimate of what you spent?—A. No. I think there was $135 
cash I had in my pocket, without the automobile, which was $15. I think it 
was $150 I had that day when I left the office.” 

Is that correct? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

“ Q. And you spent all that in one day?—A. Yes, sir.” 

* * * * * * * 

(827) Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; it was a supper, I guess, that cost about $1.60 
for the two of us. 

Senator Sutherland. You spent $1.60 for food, as I understand you? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. That would leave $305.40 for whisky and cigars and 
automobiles? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. Do you think you spent a little too much for food? 

Mr. O’Connor. No ; I did not think anything about it. 

Senator Sutherland. You do not recall spending any of the money for any¬ 
thing else. 

Mr. O’Connor. That is all it was spent for. 

Senator Sutherland. That is, you spent $305.40 for an automobile and for 
whisky and cigars? 

Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. 

Senator Sutherland. And that was your notion of furthering the interests 
nf Senator Stephenson in this campaign, was it? 



20 


SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 



Mr. O’Connor. That is the way they make a campaign up in that territory. 

Senator Sutherland. That is the way you made it, at all events? 

Mr. O’Connor. That is customary up there. 

MONEY PAID TO “ ENTHUSE ” VOTERS. 

The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds, did you pay the $50 to Mr. Dettmam on 
August 8? 

Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is not clear on that, but I think I sent it to 
him. 

The Chairman. You think you sent it to him; for what purpose? 

Mr. Edmonds. For assistance among the German Lutherans in his locality. 

The Chairman. What kind of assistance? 

Mr. Edmonds. So that he would get out and help to get out the vote—interest 
his friends—for Senator Stephenson. - 

The Chairman. There was no vote to be gotten out on August 8 for any 
purpose—nearly a month before the election. 

Mr. Edmonds. When I say getting out the vote, I do not refer to the actual 
carrying or taking of the persons to the polls, but to interest them so that they 
would get out. 

The Chairman. Enthuse them? 

Mr. Edmonds. That is the idea—enthuse them. Thank you for the sug¬ 
gestion. 

The Chairman. “ O. L. Gust, $300, August 8.” Did you pay that money? 

Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall that payment at all. 

****** * 

The Chairman. What do you mean by lining them up for Senator Ste¬ 
phenson ? 

Mr. Edmonds. Getting them interested in his election. 

The Chairman. Discussing his election with them? 

Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Paying any money to them for any purpose? 

Mr. Edmonds. That was up to the man’s judgment as to whether that was 
necessary or advisable in the conduct of the campaign for Senator Stephenson’s 
election. 

The Chairman. Was that money given to him to expend among the railroad 
men for cigars or treats of any kind if he saw fit to so expend it? 

Mr. Edmonds. So far as I know he might have expended it in that way. 

The Chairman. There was no restriction placed upon it? 

Mr. Edmonds. I think not; not in that manner. 

We regret that we can not feel warranted in finding for the sitting 
Member, but we believe the methods employed at the primary were 
corrupt; that they were against public policy; that they were de¬ 
moralizing in character; that they directly contributed to destroy 
the purity and freedom of the election; that they violated the funda¬ 
mental principles at the basis of our system of government; and that 
they are not to be tolerated by the Senate of the United States as a 
means of procuring a seat in that body. 

We desire to submit the following resolution: 

Resolved , That Isaac Stephenson was not duly and legally elected to a seat 
jn the Senate of the United States by the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin. 

W. L. Jones. 

Moses E. Clapp. 
Wm. S. Kenyon 
Jno. W. Kern 
Luke Lea. 

O .-'■!*! 



Lb Mr 12 


























































*• 


* 







































































































. 


































































































































